(UPDATED) Protecting Life? New Bill Says Its OK to Let Women Die

UPDATE 2: 10:36 PM, February 4th, 2011: Quotes from an article by Talking Points Memo quoting Cong. Joe Pitts on the intention of this bill have been included.

UPDATE, Friday, February 4, 2011. The text of the amendment referred to in this post–an expanded conscience clause–was not included in versions online via Thomas or other sources at the time of this update because amendments were made in the Chairman’s mark, a version of the bill recommended by the committee or subcommittee chair of the measure to be considered in a markup. It may subsequently appear on line. Because I am unable to create a link for the material at this time, I have (rather cumbersomely) pasted the entire thing in a comment below. This post explains the implications of the legal language included on page 6 and beyond of the Chairman’s mark.

One hundred members of Congress (so far) have cosponsored a bill introduced by far right Congressman Joe Pitts (R-PA) called the “Protect Life Act.” (See if yours is one of them below.)

They want to “protect life” so much that they have written into the bill a new amendment that would override the requirement that emergency room doctors save every patient, regardless of status or ability to pay. The law would carve out an exception for pregnant women; doctors and hospitals will be allowed to let pregnant women die if interventions to save them will kill the fetus.

Yesterday, according to a report by NARAL Pro-Choice America, lawmakers inserted the new provision onto page six of H.R.358, a bill that is already jam-packed with misogynistic anti-choice and anti-woman provisions.

According to the Congressional Research Service, HR 358:

Amends the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) to prohibit federal funds from being to used to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion services. (Currently, federal funds cannot be used for abortion services and plans receiving federal funds must keep federal funds segregated from any funds for abortion services.)

Requires any qualified health benefit plan offered through an Exchange that includes coverage for abortions to also offer a qualified health benefit plan through the Exchange that is identical in every respect except that it does not cover abortions.

Prohibits a federal agency or program and any state or local government that receives federal financial assistance under PPACA from requiring any health plan created or regulated under PPACA to discriminate against any institutional or individual health care entity based on the entity’s refusal to undergo training in the performance of induced abortions, require or provide such training, or refer for such training.

Creates a cause of action for any violations of the abortion provisions of PPACA. Gives federal courts jurisdiction to prevent and redress actual or threatened violations of such provisions by issuing any form of legal or equitable relief, including injunctions and orders preventing the disbursement of all or a portion of federal financial assistance until the prohibited conduct has ceased. Gives standing to institute an action to affected health care entities and the Attorney General.

Requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to designate the Director of the Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to receive and investigate complaints alleging a violation of PPACA abortion provisions.

Requires the Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to ensure that no multistate qualified health plan offered in an Exchange provides coverage of abortion services.

But for good measure and just to make sure we all understood the deeply misogynistic underpinning of today’s Republican party, the new language would allow hospitals to refuse to provide abortion care when necessary to save a woman’s life.

As noted by Talking Points Memo, the bill, known currently as H.R. 358 or the “Protect Life Act,” would amend the 2010 health care reform law that would modify the way Obamacare deals with abortion coverage.

Much of its language is modeled on the so-called Stupak Amendment, an anti-abortion provision pro-life Democrats attempted to insert into the reform law during the health care debate last year. But critics say a new language inserted into the bill just this week would go far beyond Stupak, allowing hospitals that receive federal funds but are opposed to abortions to turn away women in need of emergency pregnancy termination to save their lives.

As such, the bill goes further than any other bill has in encroaching on the rights of women to obtain an abortion when their health is at stake.

What is Pitts’ response to the complaints from pro-choice groups about the bill? asks Eric McMorris Santoro of TPM.

“Nothing to see here.”

“Since the 1970s, existing law affirmed the right to refuse involvement in abortion in all circumstances,” a spokesperson for Pitts told TPM. [emphasis added by RHRC].

“The Protect Life Act simply extends these provisions to the new law by inserting a provision that mirrors Hyde-Weldon,” the spokesperson added, referring to current federal law banning spending on abortion and allowing anti-abortion doctors to refrain from performing them while still receiving federal funds. “In other words, this bill is only preserving the same rights that medical professionals have had for decades.”

But as TPM notes, currently, all hospitals in America that receive Medicare or Medicaid funding are bound by a 1986 law known as EMTALA to provide emergency care to all comers, regardless of their ability to pay or other factors. Hospitals do not have to provide free care to everyone that arrives at their doorstep under EMTALA — but they do have to stabilize them and provide them with emergency care without factoring in their ability to pay for it or not. If a hospital can’t provide the care a patient needs, it is required to transfer that patient to a hospital that can, and the receiving hospital is required to accept that patient.

Pitts’ new bill would free hospitals from any abortion requirement under EMTALA, meaning that medical providers who aren’t willing to terminate pregnancies wouldn’t have to — nor would they have to facilitate a transfer.

The hospital could literally do nothing at all, pro-choice critics of Pitts’ bill say.

Crane told TPM she’s been a pro-choice advocate “for a long time,” yet she’s never seen anti-abortion bill as brazenly attacking the health of the mother exemption as Pitts’ bill has.

Pitts’ office told TPM they’re “unmoved” by NARAL’s concerns. They say the goal of their bill is to codify existing legal protections for medical providers who do not want to perform abortions, such as the Weldon Amendment. Pro-choice advocates say that the new provisions in the Pitts effectively eliminate the right of critically ill women to obtain an abortion to save their lives. That goes beyond the commonly accepted understanding of “conscience protections” for pro-life health providers.

“I think a majority of Americans would agree with us that saving a woman’s life should be every hospital’s first priority,” Alexa Kolbi-Molina, an attorney with the ACLU’s reproductive freedom division told TPM said. “We all know a woman who has faced a complication in her pregnancy … we would hope that when that woman goes to a hospital she would be protected and get the care that she needs.”

“I think a majority of Americans would believe that a hospital should not be imposing their religious beliefs when providing care, especially life-saving care,” she added.

Nancy Keenan, President of NARAL Pro-Choice America stated, “Anti-choice politicians have gone from redefining rape to denying abortion care to women who will die without it.”

“When it comes to attacking women’s freedom and privacy, these politicians know no bounds. This debate is just getting started. Any member of Congress who has signed his or her name to this agenda must be held accountable for such extreme attacks against women’s reproductive-health services.”

The Pitts bill effectively turns all hospitals into arms of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. In other words, your health care is now fully subject to fundamentalist religious ideology.

The so-called Protect Life Act is one of a slew of pieces of legislation that seek to effectively ban abortion in the United States, establish personhood of fertilized eggs, and outlaw contraception.

This has always been their ideal. When you are born, you do not have the right to demand biological material or sustenance from others, even when your life is at risk. Under their rules, you have MORE rights as a fetus than you’ll ever have again in your life. Particularly if you’re a girl fetus.

freetobe

Are there any groups of women lawyers or any other women in government out there fighting for us? This sounds unconstitutuional and who do they think they are trying to send us backwards. It is like taking candy from a baby only worse we are grown humans with rights in this country or so I thought.

Even if these bills do not pass knowing that they could in the future is terryifying! What next our right to vote our right to own property? Where will this stop? Not until they have full control over us as in the dark ages?

I am ready for war! I will not give up my rights to any man ever again! I will fight to the death!

rebellious-grrl

Jodi, Can you repost the link in paragraph one?

Thanks!

One hundred members of Congress (so far) have cosponsored a bill introduced by far right Congressman Joe Pitts (R-PA) called the “Protect Life Act.” (Check here to see if yours is one of them.)

rebellious-grrl

Thanks Jodi. It’s so sad that they care more about fertilized eggs than women. What will they waste time on next?

beenthere72

Weird. It was working earlier. There are a surprising number of women on the list. Do they not realize what they’re signing?

rebellious-grrl

When I click on the link, it says this, “Your Search Has Timed Out – Search results in THOMAS are temporary and are deleted 30 minutes after creation. Please try your search again.” Maybe it’s my computer. I’ll try again.

prochoiceferret

There are a surprising number of women on the list.

How many of them do you suppose are past menopause?

ldan

I’m wondering if any group is likely to do the same kind of targeting that SBA List did with those who voted for the health care act? They specifically worked on making sure that vote was brought up during the last election (though I don’t know if their memories will last until the next one).

I think the extreme views of those signing onto both this and H.R 3, as well as anyone who votes for either bill, should be made an issue when those folks are up for re-election.

ahunt

You know this is targeted at the slutty lower classes, as a republican never met a poor person worth any respect.

jodi-jacobson

at the bottom of the post and will update as necessary.

rebellious-grrl

Thanks Jodi! This is helpful.

catseye71352

Why are we NOT surprised?

elizabeths

Have they so mentally divorced the woman’s body from the fetus that they’ve forgotten that letting the mother die will not actually save the fetus. They do know this, right? Or maybe they are that frakking stupid. I know they are that hateful.

julie-watkins

All the Catholic doctrine defenders I’ve read, they’re saying they have to treat both patients, or the abortion can’t be “direct”. So they’ll use the surgical method to treat an eptopic pregnancy (even though it’s surgery & affects future fertility) rather than use a chemical abortion. They don’t want to be told: no, you have to use the drug. Or, no: you have to act promptly, you can’t wait for the fetal heartbeat to stop. Or have to do a direct abortion if the placenta is causing fatal heart failure.

Heartless, blind fanatics. They want to keep their women-killing ideology, but don’t want to be forced to admit or defend causing injury or death in a court of law, they’ll use politicians instead.

elizabeths

I have faced off against many an anti-choicer who suggests that there is no medical reason for a third trimester abortion when you always have the option to induce labor or have a c-section. To them, the procedure must be ideologically pure (or at least, lacking in baggage) regardless of the fact that an D&E might be the safest option for the woman.

julie-watkins

It can be. Human female biology is a compromise between larger-brain-size-is-survival-trait and larger-brain-size-can-be-fatal-genetics. Basically, larger brain gives such an advantage that genes that kill/injure a large fraction can still breed true. (Human genetics got set long before modern medicine…)

arekushieru

Exactly, since the only other animals that walk upright are the apes, maybe a few of the ‘lower-order’ primates, (and these not all the time, even) and kangaroos. And neither of the females of those species have as much difficulty giving birth as human females do. The apes and other primates don’t have as big of a brain. And, kangaroos are marsupials. They give birth, as humans do, when their young are very tiny because their pelvic area wouldn’t allow anything larger to pass. The young continue the rest of their development outSIDE of the female kangaroo’s body.

dpcom

I was astonished to hear this, so I looked up the bill and could only find this section:

‘‘(c) LIMITATION ON ABORTION FUNDING.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—No funds authorized or appropriated by this Act (or an amendment made by this Act), including credits applied toward qualified health plans under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 or cost-sharing reductions under section 1402 of this Act may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, or unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.”

Is there another section or amendment I can’t find that abrogates this?

thedude37

‘(1) IN GENERAL- No funds authorized or appropriated by this Act (or an amendment made by this Act), including credits applied toward qualified health plans under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 or cost-sharing reductions under section 1402 of this Act, may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except–

‘(B) in the case where a pregnant female suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the female in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.

You, Ms. Jacobson, are a pitiful, horrible liar. Next time I suggest you bother reading the bill.

thedude37

I’m not surprised you didn’t read the bill. Here’s the relevant text:

‘(1) IN GENERAL- No funds authorized or appropriated by this Act (or an amendment made by this Act), including credits applied toward qualified health plans under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 or cost-sharing reductions under section 1402 of this Act, may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except–

‘(B) in the case where a pregnant female suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the female in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.

This information interested me because my representative is on this list. Because I normally support our representative, I decided to dig into this and find the details of the bill (the specific offending clause was not included or paraphrased in your blog post or the one you linked to).

According to this text, the assertion by NARAL Pro-Choice America is patently false.

The bill specifically includes the clause that only abortions NOT subject to the current conditions of rape, incest, or danger to the mother’s life are not to be covered by health plans paid for with federal funds.

If you can find any information on what specifically changes the current law that doctors must save the woman’s life, please post it here, so I can contact my representative with the correct information.

thedude37

now that your lie has been exposed? Here it is again:

‘(1) IN GENERAL- No funds authorized or appropriated by this Act (or an amendment made by this Act), including credits applied toward qualified health plans under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 or cost-sharing reductions under section 1402 of this Act, may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except–

‘(B) in the case where a pregnant female suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the female in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.

‘(1) IN GENERAL- No funds authorized or appropriated by this Act (or an amendment made by this Act), including credits applied toward qualified health plans under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 or cost-sharing reductions under section 1402 of this Act, may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except–

‘(B) in the case where a pregnant female suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the female in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.

‘(1) IN GENERAL- No funds authorized or appropriated by this Act (or an amendment made by this Act), including credits applied toward qualified health plans under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 or cost-sharing reductions under section 1402 of this Act, may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except–

‘(B) in the case where a pregnant female suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the female in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.

perhaps instead of (or in addition to) quoting whoever Keenan is, you could put the language from the bill that does what you are reporting on.

thedude37

about falsehoods?

thedude37

You want to choose to read the damned bill next time?

‘(1) IN GENERAL- No funds authorized or appropriated by this Act (or an amendment made by this Act), including credits applied toward qualified health plans under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 or cost-sharing reductions under section 1402 of this Act, may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except–

‘(B) in the case where a pregnant female suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the female in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.

By the time a doctor can “prove” to an anti-antiabortion bureaucrat or court that a woman will die, she’s likely to die anyway.

jodi-jacobson

As I wrote in my piece very clearly, the language is a new amendment. It is not available on Thomas or bill tracker because it is in the Chairman’s Mark.

It is expanded conscience clause language that exempts from any action any physician or hospital that refuses to provide life-saving or health-saving abortion care to any woman if taking those actions would harm her fetus. It is medicine and health care by ideology, not ethics and science.

But that is what you prefer, is it not? Taliban-care for women?

[111H5111]……………………………………………………………(Original Signature of Member)112TH CONGRESS1ST SESSION H. R. llTo amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to modify specialrules relating to coverage of abortion services under such Act.IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESMr. PITTS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committeeon llllllllllllllA BILLTo amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Actto modify special rules relating to coverage of abortionservices under such Act.1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protect Life Act’’.VerDate Nov 24 2008 15:34 Feb 02, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\TEMP\PITTS_01A.XML HOLCPCFebruary 2, 2011 (3:34 p.m.)F:\M12\PITTS\PITTS_01A.XMLf:\VHLC\020211\020211.092.xml (485867|2)21 SEC. 2. MODIFYING SPECIAL RULES RELATING TO COV2ERAGE OF ABORTION SERVICES UNDER THE3 PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE4 CARE ACT TO CONFORM TO LONG-STANDING5 FEDERAL POLICY.6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1303 of the Patient Pro7tection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111–148),8 as amended by section 10104(c) of such Act, is amend9ed—10 (1) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as11 subsections (e) and (f), respectively;12 (2) by redesignating paragraph (4) of sub13section (b) as subsection (d) and transferring such14 subsection (d) after the subsection (c) inserted by15 paragraph (4) of this subsection with appropriate in16dentation;17 (3) by amending subsection (b) to read as fol18lows:19 ‘‘(b) SPECIAL RULES RELATING TO TRAINING IN20 AND COVERAGE OF ABORTION SERVICES.—Nothing in21 this Act (or any amendment made by this Act) shall be22 construed to require any health plan to provide coverage23 of or access to abortion services or to allow the Secretary24 or any other Federal or non-Federal person or entity in25 implementing this Act (or amendment) to require coverage26 of, access to, or training in abortion services.’’;VerDate Nov 24 2008 15:34 Feb 02, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\TEMP\PITTS_01A.XML HOLCPCFebruary 2, 2011 (3:34 p.m.)F:\M12\PITTS\PITTS_01A.XMLf:\VHLC\020211\020211.092.xml (485867|2)31 (4) by inserting after subsection (b) the fol2lowing new subsection:3 ‘‘(c) LIMITATION ON ABORTION FUNDING.—4 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—No funds authorized or ap5propriated by this Act (or an amendment made by6 this Act), including credits applied toward qualified7 health plans under section 36B of the Internal Rev8enue Code of 1986 or cost-sharing reductions under9 section 1402 of this Act, may be used to pay for any10 abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any11 health plan that includes coverage of abortion, ex12cept—13 ‘‘(A) if the pregnancy is the result of an14 act of rape or incest; or15 ‘‘(B) in the case where a pregnant female16 suffers from a physical disorder, physical in17jury, or physical illness that would, as certified18 by a physician, place the female in danger of19 death unless an abortion is performed, includ20ing a life-endangering physical condition caused21 by or arising from the pregnancy itself.22 ‘‘(2) OPTION TO PURCHASE SEPARATE COV23ERAGE OR PLAN.—Nothing in this subsection shall24 be construed as prohibiting any non-Federal entity25 (including an individual or a State or local govern-VerDate Nov 24 2008 15:34 Feb 02, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\TEMP\PITTS_01A.XML HOLCPCFebruary 2, 2011 (3:34 p.m.)F:\M12\PITTS\PITTS_01A.XMLf:\VHLC\020211\020211.092.xml (485867|2)41 ment) from purchasing separate coverage for abor2tions for which funding is prohibited under this sub3section, or a qualified health plan that includes such4 abortions, so long as—5 ‘‘(A) such coverage or plan is paid for en6tirely using only funds not authorized or appro7priated by this Act; and8 ‘‘(B) such coverage or plan is not pur9chased using—10 ‘‘(i) individual premium payments re11quired for a qualified health plan offered12 through an Exchange towards which a13 credit is applied under section 36B of the14 Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or15 ‘‘(ii) other non-Federal funds required16 to receive a Federal payment, including a17 State’s or locality’s contribution of Med18icaid matching funds.19 ‘‘(3) OPTION TO OFFER COVERAGE OR PLAN.—20 Nothing in this subsection or section21 1311(d)(2)(B)(i) shall restrict any non-Federal22 health insurance issuer offering a qualified health23 plan from offering separate coverage for abortions24 for which funding is prohibited under this sub-VerDate Nov 24 2008 15:34 Feb 02, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\TEMP\PITTS_01A.XML HOLCPCFebruary 2, 2011 (3:34 p.m.)F:\M12\PITTS\PITTS_01A.XMLf:\VHLC\020211\020211.092.xml (485867|2)51 section, or a qualified health plan that includes such2 abortions, so long as—3 ‘‘(A) premiums for such separate coverage4 or plan are paid for entirely with funds not au5thorized or appropriated by this Act;6 ‘‘(B) administrative costs and all services7 offered through such coverage or plan are paid8 for using only premiums collected for such cov9erage or plan; and10 ‘‘(C) any such non-Federal health insur11ance issuer that offers a qualified health plan12 through an Exchange that includes coverage for13 abortions for which funding is prohibited under14 this subsection also offers a qualified health15 plan through the Exchange that is identical in16 every respect except that it does not cover abor17tions for which funding is prohibited under this18 subsection.’’;19 (5) in subsection (e), as redesignated by para20graph (1)—21 (A) in the heading, strike ‘‘Regarding22 Abortion’’;23 (B) in the heading of each of paragraphs24 (1) and (2), strike each place it appears ‘‘RE25GARDING ABORTION’’;VerDate Nov 24 2008 15:34 Feb 02, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\TEMP\PITTS_01A.XML HOLCPCFebruary 2, 2011 (3:34 p.m.)F:\M12\PITTS\PITTS_01A.XMLf:\VHLC\020211\020211.092.xml (485867|2)61 (C) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘regard2ing the prohibition of (or requirement of) cov3erage, funding, or’’ and inserting ‘‘protecting4 conscience rights, restricting or prohibiting5 abortion or coverage or funding of abortion, or6 establishing’’; and7 (D) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking8 ‘‘Nothing’’ and inserting ‘‘Subject to subsection9 (g), nothing’’;10 (6) in subsection (f), as redesignated by para11graph (1), by striking ‘‘Nothing’’ and inserting12 ‘‘Subject to subsection (g), nothing’’; and13 (7) by adding at the end the following new sub14section:15 ‘‘(g) NONDISCRIMINATION ON ABORTION.—16 ‘‘(1) NONDISCRIMINATION.—A Federal agency17 or program, and any State or local government that18 receives Federal financial assistance under this Act19 (or an amendment made by this Act), may not sub20ject any institutional or individual health care entity21 to discrimination, or require any health plan created22 or regulated under this Act (or an amendment made23 by this Act) to subject any institutional or individual24 health care entity to discrimination, on the basis25 that the health care entity refuses to—VerDate Nov 24 2008 15:34 Feb 02, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\TEMP\PITTS_01A.XML HOLCPCFebruary 2, 2011 (3:34 p.m.)F:\M12\PITTS\PITTS_01A.XMLf:\VHLC\020211\020211.092.xml (485867|2)71 ‘‘(A) undergo training in the performance2 of induced abortions;3 ‘‘(B) require or provide such training;4 ‘‘(C) perform, participate in, provide cov5erage of, or pay for induced abortions; or6 ‘‘(D) provide referrals for such training or7 such abortions.8 ‘‘(2) DEFINITION.—In this subsection, the term9 ‘health care entity’ includes an individual physician10 or other health care professional, a hospital, a pro11vider-sponsored organization, a health maintenance12 organization, a health insurance plan, or any other13 kind of health care facility, organization, or plan.14 ‘‘(3) REMEDIES.—15 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The courts of the16 United States shall have jurisdiction to prevent17 and redress actual or threatened violations of18 this section by issuing any form of legal or eq19uitable relief, including—20 ‘‘(i) injunctions prohibiting conduct21 that violates this subsection; and22 ‘‘(ii) orders preventing the disburse23ment of all or a portion of Federal finan24cial assistance to a State or local govern25ment, or to a specific offending agency orVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:34 Feb 02, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\TEMP\PITTS_01A.XML HOLCPCFebruary 2, 2011 (3:34 p.m.)F:\M12\PITTS\PITTS_01A.XMLf:\VHLC\020211\020211.092.xml (485867|2)81 program of a State or local government,2 until such time as the conduct prohibited3 by this subsection has ceased.4 ‘‘(B) COMMENCEMENT OF ACTION.—An5 action under this subsection may be instituted6 by—7 ‘‘(i) any health care entity that has8 standing to complain of an actual or9 threatened violation of this subsection; or10 ‘‘(ii) the Attorney General of the11 United States.12 ‘‘(4) ADMINISTRATION.—The Secretary shall13 designate the Director of the Office for Civil Rights14 of the Department of Health and Human Services—15 ‘‘(A) to receive complaints alleging a viola16tion of this subsection; and17 ‘‘(B) to pursue investigation of such com18plaints in coordination with the Attorney Gen19eral.’’.20 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 1334(a)(6)21 of such Act is amended to read as follows:22 ‘‘(6) COVERAGE CONSISTENT WITH FEDERAL23 POLICY.—In entering into contracts under this sub24section, the Director shall ensure that no multi-State25 qualified health plan offered in an Exchange pro-VerDate Nov 24 2008 15:34 Feb 02, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\TEMP\PITTS_01A.XML HOLCPCFebruary 2, 2011 (3:34 p.m.)F:\M12\PITTS\PITTS_01A.XMLf:\VHLC\020211\020211.092.xml (485867|2)91 vides coverage for abortions for which funding is2 prohibited under subsection 1303(c) of this Act.’’.VerDate Nov 24 2008 15:34 Feb 02, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\TEMP\PITTS_01A.XML HOLCPCFebruary 2, 2011 (3:34 p.m.)F:\M12\PITTS\PITTS_01A.XMLf:\VHLC\020211\020211.092.xml (485867|2)

ldan

Actually, that is not the relevant text. That pertains to the fact that funds may be used to cover abortion in those circumstances. It has nothing to do with the conscience clause language.

The section regarding conscience clauses does not carve out any exceptions. It plainly states that one cannot discriminate against an entity or individual who refuses to do abortions, full stop. It does not make exceptions that would allow hospitals to be sanctioned for not providing abortions when this risks a woman’s life.

freetobe

NO FUNDING FOR ABORTIONS what the hell is your problem? Paranoia dude and your repukelican death panel, lying boys , puppet buddies.

Talk about OVERKILL I guess you and they cannot read.

arekushieru

15 ‘‘(g) NONDISCRIMINATION ON ABORTION.—16 ‘‘(1) NONDISCRIMINATION.—A Federal agency17 or program, and any State or local government that18 receives Federal financial assistance under this Act19 (or an amendment made by this Act), may not sub20ject any institutional or individual health care entity21 to discrimination, or require any health plan created22 or regulated under this Act (or an amendment made23 by this Act) to subject any institutional or individual24 health care entity to discrimination, on the basis25 that the health care entity refuses to—VerDate Nov 24 2008 15:34 Feb 02, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\TEMP\PITTS_01A.XML HOLCPCFebruary 2, 2011 (3:34 p.m.)F:\M12\PITTS\PITTS_01A.XMLf:\VHLC\020211\020211.092.xml (485867|2)71 ‘‘(A) undergo training in the performance2 of induced abortions;3 ‘‘(B) require or provide such training;4 ‘‘(C) perform, participate in, provide cov5erage of, or pay for induced abortions; or6 ‘‘(D) provide referrals for such training or7 such abortions.8 ‘‘(2) DEFINITION.—In this subsection, the term9 ‘health care entity’ includes an individual physician10 or other health care professional, a hospital, a pro11vider-sponsored organization, a health maintenance12 organization, a health insurance plan, or any other13 kind of health care facility, organization, or plan.14 ‘‘(3) REMEDIES.—15 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The courts of the16 United States shall have jurisdiction to prevent17 and redress actual or threatened violations of18 this section by issuing any form of legal or eq19uitable relief, including—20 ‘‘(i) injunctions prohibiting conduct21 that violates this subsection; and22 ‘‘(ii) orders preventing the disburse23ment of all or a portion of Federal finan24cial assistance to a State or local govern25ment, or to a specific offending agency orVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:34 Feb 02, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\TEMP\PITTS_01A.XML HOLCPCFebruary 2, 2011 (3:34 p.m.)F:\M12\PITTS\PITTS_01A.XMLf:\VHLC\020211\020211.092.xml (485867|2)81 program of a State or local government,2 until such time as the conduct prohibited3 by this subsection has ceased.

Can I just say… B.U.L.L.P.U.C.K.Y???? This is NOT non-discrimination. As NO other medical procedure is given such vast room for movement as dictated by the health care professionals who provide it. This is PURE and BLATANT discrimination against women.

But, I DID notice how that seemed to shut the antis up.

altrout

Folks don’t fall for these lies. Read the BILL yourself. Think for yourself. Don’t be blind sheep manipulated by others.

(c) Limitation on Abortion Funding-‘(1) IN GENERAL- No funds authorized or appropriated by this Act (or an amendment made by this Act), including credits applied toward qualified health plans under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 or cost-sharing reductions under section 1402 of this Act, may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion,

except–‘(A) if the pregnancy occurred because the pregnant female was the subject of an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest; or‘(B) in the case where a pregnant female suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the female in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.

The Bill clearly makes an exception for rape or incest of the life of the mother.

ahunt

Review Trout:

As I wrote in my piece very clearly, the language is a new amendment. It is not available on Thomas or bill tracker because it is in the Chairman’s Mark.

It is expanded conscience clause language that exempts from any action any physician or hospital that refuses to provide life-saving or health-saving abortion care to any woman if taking those actions would harm her fetus. It is medicine and health care by ideology, not ethics and science.

littledinobug

If the pregnant mother dies, the baby dies anyway. So that’s aborting two lives instead of “One” if you believe in that way.

My head is full of….confusion over this bill. Like WTH??

* CONFUSED

arekushieru

Well, considering there is no intent to kill even with abortion, itself (unless you consider the fetal portion of a placenta human life, which even most anti-choicers don’t), they’re just bringing disingenuousness to a whole new level. After all, they approve of THESE methods, because they say there is no intent to kill.

Besides, forcing a woman to induce labour or have a c-section is denying her, her right to medical privacy. And, as you and Julie said, these options aren’t always the healthiest options for the woman (and, thus, very unhealthy for the fetus), meaning that they are intending harm to the woman while denying *unintentional* harm to the fetus. Hypocrites.

Just in case the antis were the ones who are responsible for my rating on this comment, I have one question I would like to ask you: Why does a scenario, involving the implantation of the fetal portion of the placenta into a specific female organ, constitute intent to kill when that connection is removed, even though that action is FAR outside of a woman’s control and, *thus*, her responsibility?

ldan

It makes an exception to funding abortions in those cases. It does not use those cases as exceptions to the section strengthening the conscience clause.

Now, this is an amendment, and perhaps the bill it is amending has language that makes it clear the conscience clause is not to be used as an excuse to let women die. But I honestly don’t believe so, because unlike the ‘death panel’-shrieking opposition, I have yet to see the folks on this side of the debate jump to such unfounded conclusions.

So are you lot done copy/pasting the non-relevant portion of the amendment all over the comment feed?

d1st4nt

*Entire comment copied and pasted for proof-of-non-tampering*

The portion you need to re-read is highlighted in bold, the word “except” (which is broken up by line numbers – what did you use to copy/paste this?) is italicized. Everything thereafter, is an exception (such as an abortion being paid for by tax dollars if doing so will save the woman’s life).

So, based on this logic, your update, which was to provide the language showing that the GOP didn’t support abortion if it would save the mother’s life, shows the exact opposite.

Please, people listen to what you say, be more responsible with your research and your blogging/journalism/what-have-you. If you’re irresponsible with it, you’re likely to shape public opinion based on your own lack of reading comprehension or over-site.

As I wrote in my piece very clearly, the language is a new amendment. It is not available on Thomas or bill tracker because it is in the Chairman’s Mark.

It is expanded conscience clause language that exempts from any action any physician or hospital that refuses to provide life-saving or health-saving abortion care to any woman if taking those actions would harm her fetus. It is medicine and health care by ideology, not ethics and science.

But that is what you prefer, is it not? Taliban-care for women?

[111H5111]

……………………………………………………………

(Original Signature of Member)

112TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. ll

To amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to modify special

rules relating to coverage of abortion services under such Act.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. PITTS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

Language has been added in the Chairman’s mark that creates an expanded conscience clause –a non-discrimination clause–which exempts institutions and individuals from performing abortions even in cases where a woman’s life is in danger.

As per above, this version does not appear on line as yet.

You may recall that recently a Catholic hospital in Arizona was cut off from its affiliation with the Diocese because an abortion was performed to save a woman’s life (a woman who already had several children), after hospital ethicists and others determined it was the best course. This is exactly the type of thing that in another situation, a Catholic hospital or other hospital or individual claiming “conscience” would now be exempt from having to do.

This is a dangerous precedent in and of itself but increasingly so given that Catholic hospitals are taking an increasing share of the hospital market.

We are entering an era where our medical and pharmacy practice is not being determined by medical ethics, best practices, or the best interests of the living, breathing extant patient, but rather by someone’s distorted view of what constitutes “life.”

I do encourage you to contact your representative and protest the entire bill, including but not limited to the newly included language.

arekushieru

Because you’re reading the WRONG part, OBviously. See my comment above yours. THAT is the part that is in question. Kthxbai.

d1st4nt

Re-read the article, that’s the point YOU’RE arguing. That is not the point of the article:

From the article text:

The law would carve out an exception for pregnant women; doctors and hospitals will be allowed to let pregnant women die if interventions to save them will kill the fetus.

This statement is wholly false based on the information I provided.

arekushieru

Um, yeah, because of the CONSCIENCE CLAUSE in the Non-Discrimination On Abortion enactment, which, as I said, is what I posted above your previous comment. Which means this is EXACTLY what BOTH articles talk about. Lack of reading comprehension, much?

dpcom

The link to the relevant text is given above in several comments. I don’t understand how the author of the article cannot find the information. Anyway, trying to understand the argument I can only conclude that the relavant text under question is:

“`(g) Nondiscrimination on Abortion-

◦`(1) NONDISCRIMINATION- A Federal agency or program, and any State or local government that receives Federal financial assistance under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act), may not subject any institutional or individual health care entity to discrimination, or require any health plan created or regulated under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) to subject any institutional or individual health care entity to discrimination, on the basis that the health care entity refuses to–

The single quote marks are from the original text and indicate text to be inserted, rather than directions to the editor as all other text is.

So, does this text allow “exempts institutions and individuals from performing abortions even in cases where a woman’s life is in danger” as stated by Jodi?

My first impression of the text is that it is saying that government agencies cannot discriminate, in the application of the original bill, against institutions that do not provide abortion. For instance, my wife’s OBGYN did not do abortions, so this amendment would restrict government agencies from discrimination against that doctor.

I can’t follow the logic that this amendment will not prosecute, which I think is the implication of the argument, doctors that allow a woman to die by not giving an abortion. That seems a streatch.

But if it can be interpreted in that way, then it should be made clearer that that is not the intent.

altrout

Are you saying the part you are objecting to is not even being proposed and not available yet?

If someone has an objection to doing an abortion, there are many others who don’t have an objection when it comes to the life of the mother usually in the same medical facility but even with all that the bill clearly says that rape, incest and life of the mother are exceptions and thus applies to all part of the bill.

Read the bill. The entire bill. Don’t be sheep.

In addition, when did every medical provider suddenly become uncaring of people dying? Many in the pro-life movement are very very pro-life including pro-life Atheists/Buddhists like myself and Christopher Hitchens. And to all of them, it makes no sense to let a mother die because if the mother dies the baby will die as well. Most pro-lifers are very conscious of this. Very few if any pregnancies put the life of the mother in danger. Removal of tubal pregnancies are not considered abortions because the fetus is not viable.

This I must say looks suspiciously as an excuse to inflame people. We should be trying to understand each other, not throwing inflammatory rhetoric around. Surely the pro-choice movement has not reduced itself to this.

There is nothing in this bill that warrants any of the angry responses on this page. Except perhaps to try to blindly lead people to jump to irrational judgement.

And to stave off some sort of religious objection ahead of time, (I get that ALL the time on pro-choice sites). So let me be up front I’m Buddhist and here’s a brief list of prolife groups who are not religious or conservative:

Maybe folks commenting on this page should review why many witches, Buddhists, feminists and pagans are prolife.

freetobe

Is there any other human body part reviewed and controlled so unscrupulously (spelling sorry)

and why and how can doctors treat murderers and rapists? Is their a conscience claus for them too? What about criminals can they get drugs without questioning after they are released from prison?

I mean this is getting out of control people!!!!Make it stop! Stop the Government intrusion into womens lives we are HUMAN BEINGS not incubators!!

arekushieru

Refuses does not equate to lack of provision of abortion care. And, the original language of that section of the law, as L-DAN pointed out, did NOT include life-saving care as its intention, which means that, in order to repudiate the claims made, here, they should have included it, in the first place.

Btw, none of the links that have been provided have included any of the new language in the bill. Even if it did, though, it’s kind of funny that you mention Jodi, specifically, when there are many others who obviously couldn’t find it, as well.

ldan

The part you highlighted simply allows that federal funds may be used to pay for abortion in those specific cases (rape, incest, threat to life).

It says zip about those cases with regard to the conscience clause below it. The conscience clause portion states that medical entities may not be discriminated against if they refuse to provide abortion period. It makes no exceptions for cases in which women’s lives are risked by such refusal.

You are the one arguing the wrong point.

arekushieru

Um, if the language is to be inserted, I don’t know what else you can call it, exCEPT ‘proposed’ language?

Err, more serious lack of reading comprehension? Each subsection repeats that clause exCEPT for the one regarding Non-Discrimination on Abortion. So, OBviously it is NOT included in the conscience clause, there.

Really? Are they pro-life about donating all the organs they possibly can to save organ recipients’ lives? Besides, most of the Pro-Lifers I have encountered go on to prove that they have no understanding of the dangers high-risk pregnancies present to the woman and, thus, the fetus. Just as you, yourself, have done. ALL pregnancies pose a danger to the woman. Pregnancy IS the second leading cause of death in women, worldwide. You might also want to read about Obstetric Fistula, on this website, as well. And, lastly, Anti-Choicers should have no problem with early-term abortions since the fetus is not viable until at LEAST 22 weeks.

Because they’ve fallen for the same drivel that religious folk do, the same drivel that the latter simply falls more easily for.

Btw, I’m a Pro-Choice Christian, one who sinCEREly believes that one has to have been deceived by ‘Satan’ in order to be Pro-Life and Christian.

arekushieru

I think you spelled it right, Freetobe. At least my browser says you did!

altrout

So let me get this straight. You think that since any pregnancy is dangerous all pregnancies should force someone who does not want to do an abortion to do an abortion? Is this the logic you use? And you call forcing someone to do an abortion as stopping government intrusion? What am I missing here?

Can you tell me WHY you think the exception clause does NOT apply to the life of the mother? Can you also prove that all those signers of the bill also think it does NOT apply to the life of the mother? You see it seems you just want to inflame things and prescribe motives to others.

ldan

The part carving out exceptions to the anti-abortion language is very clear on only carving it out with regards to funding…not as regards the entirety of the bill.

My recollection from the AZ Catholic hospital dustup is that current law requires hospitals to provide life-saving care in emergencies regardless of other policies, preferences, or conscience issues in operation at that hospital. Catholic hospitals have been documented flouting that law, and the aforementioned dustup was regarding one that did not flout it and wound up cut off by the church for its troubles. Thus, dismissing concerns because ‘it makes no sense to let a mother die because if the mother dies the baby will die as well.’ is ignoring the fact that this is already a problem.

The strengthening of the conscience clause listed above, exacerbates this problem by making it harder to sanction (discriminate) against hospitals that operate in this fashion. Would it be discriminatory for a city to require that ambulances avoid Catholic hospitals if they responded to an emergency situation involving a pregnant woman?

Maybe I don’t really care why many folks are pro-life when it seems to simply be shorthand for continuing to insist that women be subject to intrusions that nobody else is. When they continue to insist that fetuses are more valuable than women, and insist that I and every other woman live our lives by that metric, why should I really care why they are pro-life? They are very demonstrably not pro-my-life.

jodi-jacobson

No I am not saying it is not available. I am saying it is/was not available on line at the original time of posting. Amendments are written into legislation every day of the week, and do not necessarily appear on line for our convenience.

You write:

If someone has an objection to doing an abortion, there are many others who don’t have an objection when it comes to the life of the mother usually in the same medical facility but even with all that the bill clearly says that rape, incest and life of the mother are exceptions and thus applies to all part of the bill.

False. Not true in Catholic hospitals which have an increasing share of the market. Moreover, why should the life of any woman any where be subjected to ideologically driven rather than medically accurate emergency care.

You wrote:

In addition, when did every medical provider suddenly become uncaring of people dying? Many in the pro-life movement are very very pro-life including pro-life Atheists/Buddhists like myself and Christopher Hitchens. And to all of them, it makes no sense to let a mother die because if the mother dies the baby will die as well. Most pro-lifers are very conscious of this. Very few if any pregnancies put the life of the mother in danger. Removal of tubal pregnancies are not considered abortions because the fetus is not viable.

First, who are you to decide what pregnancies are dangerous to the life or health of an individual woman not presenting to you for care? Second, if you think that “many in the prolife community” are so caring about women’s lives (sorry, i dont see Christopher Hitchens lobbying on the Hill), then why are groups like Pro-Life Wisconsin and Personhood Colorado and a host of others so explicit in “no exceptions for life or health of the mtoher, and why TODAY did Arizona prolifers reject an abortion bill because they could not accept a bill that included such exceptions (or for rape?). Why did we see this case in Arizona?

Why was a pharmacist in January allowed to refuse to fill a prescription prescribed to a woman to forestall hemorhagging because she might have had an abortion?

Look around, my friend.

You can theorize all you want. In reality real women every day are being denied care they need. and as long as you and yours are not immediately affected, you can stay safely behind the theory.

ahunt

Not following…

ldan

Can you tell me WHY you think the exception clause does NOT apply to the life of the mother? Can you also prove that all those signers of the bill also think it does NOT apply to the life of the mother? You see it seems you just want to inflame things and prescribe motives to others.

Nobody says the exception clause does not apply to abortions required to save women’s lives. We are saying it applies to the section regarding funding, not the section regarding conscience clauses.

Why? Because it is listed right there in the Funding section…not in the section regarding nondiscrimination against entities refusing to do/teach/etc. abortion.

I believe that forcing a doctor to do an abortion when someone’s life is in danger is absolutely correct. It is completely immoral to let women die because they ended up in the wrong hospital in an emergency situation. Would you allow a doctor to allow a gay man to die because they don’t believe in treating ‘immoral’ people like that, or would you opine that they be forced to save them? If there’s another doctor nearby without those qualms, great…if not, they’re stuck with it.

And what does the fact that all pregnancies are dangerous have to do with this argument? As an argument for abortion being an available choice in general, sure, but that isn’t what’s being debated here.

altrout

Arekushieru as an areligious Buddist, I don’t care what someone’s superstitious beliefs make them want to do. Some Muslim fanatics believe that their god wants them to kill us pagans. It’s not relevant to the argument, only relevant to making sure they don’t kill us.

So can we agree that when it comes to this issue we only care what is scientifically and logically and morally and legally relevant. So please do not bring religion into this.

arekushieru

Can you tell me WHY you think the exception clause does NOT apply to the life of the mother? Can you also prove that all those signers of the bill also think it does NOT apply to the life of the mother? You see it seems you just want to inflame things and prescribe motives to others.

A demonstration of lack of reading comprehension, again. As L-Dan and I both explained, the language is used specifically in each and every case exCEPT for the part where it refers to ‘Conscience’. Either way, both your and our claims are assumptions, but I think, all considered, a case can be made that yours is the much LARger assumption.

So let me get this straight. You think that since any pregnancy is dangerous all pregnancies should force someone who does not want to do an abortion to do an abortion? Is this the logic you use? And you call forcing someone to do an abortion as stopping government intrusion? What am I missing here?

Um, why are you conflating two ideas that have never even come into the same orbit as each other? The two ideas that we ARE conflating are government intrusion in regards to regulation of violation of the ‘Conscience clause’ and government intrusion in regards to following ‘best practices’. Which do you think is the larger intrusion, based on the political ideologies of the ProLife and ProChoice movements, respectively? And, did you not also read Freetobe’s response. As she said, no OTHER medical remedy is regulated in such a manner as this bill would have abortion regulated. Thanks.

arekushieru

Um, I believe I was responding to YOU. You are the one who brought it into the discussion, even though no one had mentioned any such thing as of yet, as a ‘pre-emptive strike’, I grant you, yes, but that has nothing to do with the fact that I was merely responding to YOU.

altrout

OK just clarifying. Let’s leave religion out.

altrout

Yes, both are assumptions and we come full circle to my original point. Why use inflammatory language as this author has done without evidence. This is not responsible. It’s this same kind of inflammatory language that we see causing violence all over the world. This author should be more responsible.

arekushieru

And that we can agree upon. Thanks. :)

arekushieru

Um, like I also said, there is far more substantial evidence for the assumption made by the author. Again, thanks.

altrout

I guess it all comes down to one question: What are we aborting? Once we answer that, then we can answer the other questions. Afterall if Abortion is the killing of a human as I and Christopher Hitchens think then we should be careful. But if abortion is just the removal of some unwanted tissue than who cares what you do.

What do you think we are aborting?

altrout

“Um, like I also said, there is far more substantial evidence for the assumption made by the author. Again, thanks.”

Sorry that’s just not right. But we can agree to disagree. However you don’t see me riling up the troops and convincing sheep to go around calling people “woman killers” like many posts here did.

If you are heartless and don’t care about the consequences of your words that’s fine, but if you are a responsible citizen of planet earth then you should use wisdom and right thinking and right reasoning and calmness and caution before saying such inflammatory things.

arekushieru

It doesn’t matter. If women have the same rights as everyone else, they have the same right to determine who uses their body, and every part therein, and when and how they are used, just as everyone else does with indisputable human beings, which occurs even when another’s life depends upon that usage.

But, abortion is the termination of the implantation of the fetal portion of the placenta.

ahunt

Congratulations Trout….with your use of the word “we”….you have officially confirmed my suspicions that you believe a woman’s uterus is public property.

Well done. No rilly.

ldan

*blink*

What is this in response to? And how is it germane to the conversation at hand? It really helps if you actually use the ‘reply’ link attached to the post you are replying to and/or quote what you are responding to.

This amendment and H.R. 3 are abominations designed to not only make Hyde permanent, but to redefine what constitute ‘federal funds,’ create unprecidented leeway for medical professionals to endanger women, and to intrude deeply on the ability of women to exercise a legal right.

We can argue elsewhere about whether that right should or should not be legal. Here, apparently, we are arguing about whether the folks who do think it should be legal are overreacting to the unprecedented attack on that right. The answer is, not really. From the standpoint of someone firmly on the side of legal abortion, these amendments are brutal. From the standpoint of someone interested in women’s health, these amendments are cruel and overbearing.

arekushieru

Sorry that’s just not right. But we can agree to disagree. However you don’t see me riling up the troops and convincing sheep to go around calling people “woman killers” like many posts here did.

Do you say the same thing when your fellow Pro-Lifers do the same thing that you believe we are doing, then? And, I assure you, they do it in far larger numbers. And, when someone believes that something isn’t right, they usually have an argument to back themselves up….

altrout

This comment has been removed.

RH Reality Check is an unapologetically pro-choice publication, and the majority of our readers supports the struggle for sexual and reproductive rights, health, and justice. We realize that some of our readers and commenters do not support these goals. We embrace and encourage vigorous debate and civil discourse on the site and welcome comments representing diverse points of view that are evidence-based and reasonably engage the debate. We reserve the right to delete, without further explanation, comments that misrepresent evidence or promote misinformation, that threaten or demean others, undermine the civility of discussion or seek to divert conversation from the topic of the original article. We reserve the right to ban users who repeatedly abuse commenting privileges.

–RH Reality Check staff

ldan

Let’s see…I see one comment that uses the phrase “woman-killing ideology”. Please point out where we single anyone out as woman-killers. Making the point that this legislation will result in women dying is not so much inflammatory as based on documented past experience of what Catholic hospitals pressure doctors to do.

If the anti-choice side talked about fetuses dying instead of ‘women killing their children,’ if they called them ‘abortion providers’ instead of ‘baby killers,’ if they didn’t insist that abortion is murder, you might even sound non-hypocritical when accusing the other side of inflammatory language.

ahunt

Presumptuous much, Trout? Attempts to dictate the manner and content of discourse here are ALWAYS epic fails. Feel free to try though, and while yer at it, head on over to Stanek’s blog, and give it a shot.

Lemme know how it works out for you.

elizabeths

Now that this conversation has gone the way of Godwin’s Law, we can start to get serious.

altrout

Is that your defense?

ahunt

Oh fer cryin’ out loud…

Godwin’s Law, Trout. Look it up.

squirrely-girl

… YOU aren’t aborting anything now are you?

ldan

Troll, troll, trollidy, troll.

This is so far off topic it isn’t even funny. As soon as the debate hits a point where you don’t have a response to the topic at hand…the topic shifts, right off into Godwinland this time.

Since you can’t even reply in such a fashion as to keep the conversation coherent as to what you’re replying to, I’m done feeding the troll.

elizabeths

Anyone who believes that “few if any” (emphasized for truthiness) pregnancies put the life of the woman in danger has nothing to contribute to a discussion of reproductive rights. Really.

ahunt

Of WHAT?

rebellious-grrl

I see you’re proficient at copying and pasting. *Wow, I’m so dazzled*

squirrely-girl

… is the section of the umbilical cord attached to the fetus, no more no less.

And when you find something that shows slaves were residing in another individual’s body using them for life support, I’ll chat about comparing abortions to slavery. Until then…

squirrely-girl

… you could pass along that suggestion to Stupak and friends?

arekushieru

Um, I think sie was replying to me, ahunt. But sie SERiously misinterpreted what I said. I never admitted that we were using inflammatory language, after all AND I simply asked AlTrout if sie condemned ProLifers in the same manner.

arekushieru

Fetus does NOT equal placenta. Really, you don’t know anything about pregnancy and yet STILL feel well-informed enough to comment on something dealing with that very subject? I didn’t say a fetus wasn’t human. I absolutely believe a fetus is human life. Which is WHY I’m ProChoice, because I DON’T believe that a fetus should get more rights than an indisPUTable human being does (y’know, the part you avoided addressing in favour of the above, and in order to continue derailing the thread, at that, too). If unwanted pregnancy is a mere ‘inconvenience’, then unwanted sex is even moreso, so don’t bother defending yourself from rape, because it’s merely ‘inconvenient’.

OFFS, another stinking Godwin. Hitler was anti-choice. He was ProLife for German women and ProAbortion for Jewish women. Gisella Perl, a ProChoice woman, saved Jewish women from certain death by aborting their pregnancies. A ProLife doctor would have most likely let both women and feoti die, most likely in order to convince themselves that they did not participate in an act they consider immoral.

BOTH Hitler and slave-owners denied rights to a group of humans they categorized as inferior while giving more rights to those they considered superior, just like the ProLifers want to deny rights to a group of humans they categorize as inferior (women) and grant more rights to a group of humans they categorize as superior (feoti).

Now, if you want to continue to derail this thread on a topic that is entirely irrelevant to the ProChoice movement, as well (the reason why I say all ProLifers have merely been deceived by the drivel they’ve been force-fed, whether religious OR atheist), please, feel free to go right ahead.

altrout

1. There is nothing that can be pinned down as being anti woman in this bill that isn’t simply presumptuous.

2. The author of this blog presumptuously attacked the bill and used inflammatory language.

3. A bunch of sheep who didn’t realize the presumption that the blogger created have now read the bill for themselves and realized the presumption and realized that their best argument is “we think we know better than you” rather than we know for a fact.

I think I’ve done enough here to stop now.

But I still want to know what it is that you think that you are killing. Surely if you were killing another human being then this conscience clause would have some relevance. If the fetus is a human being equivalent morally to a 1 day old baby then what you are saying is that if a mother comes in with a 1 day old baby who is completely dependent on the mother to survive, but the mother does not wish to take care of the baby, the nurse in operating room cannot say: I do not wish to be part of this procedure to kill this human being. So please ask another nurse to do so.

So you see this IS relevant. My question then is can you prove to me that this fetal matter that you talk about is not morally and logically equivalent to a 1 day old baby? It has it’s own unique DNA. It has it’s own blood supply. For convenience let’s ignore embryos for now. We can come back to them after we deal with the general case. The fetus has brain waves, finger prints, heart, lungs, all necessary organs. All that is left for it to be equal to a 1 day old baby is food, shelter and time oh and is 12 weeks old. Can you say you want to force someone to kill it against their wishes? Especially when there are so many others who would be more than happy to earn the extra pay to do the job. This is not about banning abortions, it’s about allowing doctors and nurses to say: I believe this is a human being and wish to have no part in killing it. The government should not force me to do so. In fact most nurses and doctors can have this clearly marked in their files and would never need to be called to do this. This law is all about preventing the government from forcing someone to do what they wish to not do for personal convictions. This is not about stopping abortions. This is truly the meaning of pro-choice. Let the people who do not want to do abortions choose not to do so. Let the people who do want to have an abortion have one. And let’s not for people who do not want to pay for abortions be taxed for something they think is murder.

ahunt

1. There is nothing that can be pinned down as being anti woman in this bill that isn’t simply presumptuous.

Actually, I believe official efforts to force women to bear children against their will is “anti-woman.

2. The author of this blog presumptuously attacked the bill and used inflammatory language.

Well no…the author used accurate language.

3. A bunch of sheep who didn’t realize the presumption that the blogger created have now read the bill for themselves and realized the presumption and realized that their best argument is “we think we know better than you” rather than we know for a fact.

You appear to believe that the author pulled this out of her ass. Such is not the case.

Thanks for the link. I’ve been looking for something to point people to that spells it out more clearly than simply showing them the language of the bill. The fact that Pitts stands there and basically says that they’re correct, is helpful as well.

arekushieru

1. There is nothing in this bill that canNOT be pinned down as being anti-woman that isn’t simply presumptuous.

2. The author of this blog attacked language based on what evidence she has seen of it in the bill using perfectly acceptable language of her own.

3. A bunch of sheep who have created their own presumption of the bill in order to attack said blogger have now read the bill for themselves but continue to doggedly presume that their best argument is that they know better than anyone, without any sufficient evidence to back themselves up.

Nope. I have explained WHY it wouldn’t. I think it would behoove you to read that comment. Abortion IS: Termination of pregnancy (the implantation of the fetal portion of the placenta, which, again, does NOT equal fetus). NO one born has the right to co-opt another person’s body, or parts therein, not EVEN to save their life, without that person’s ongoing, explicit and informed consent. A baby is NOT completely dependent upon one single person to survive as a fetus is.

And, way to go with the lack of reading comprehension again. I am against war because it actually kills innocent human beings, so why should I be forced to support, through taxation, something I see as murder? Get how ridiculous your logic is, now?

If this position was truly ProChoice, as you say, you would allow the same distinction for all other medical remedies. You don’t. So, it’s not about allowing choice, but about punishment, punishment for the way a woman’s body was made.

Now, can we get back on-topic… please…?

altrout

You appear to believe that the author pulled this out of her…<link>

Why would you want to read somebody else’s conclusion. Are you not capable of reading the bill yourself. We both did. We came to the same conclusion. It’s presumptuous to think this bill forces one or the other. Where we disagree is whether it is more presumptuous on one side or the other. But our disagreement was about the level of presumption. Could not the author of this blog do the same? Is she also a sheep? Could she at least not be intellectually honest and admit that it is presumptuous?

I said: 1. There is nothing that can be pinned down as being anti woman in this bill that isn’t simply presumptuous.

You said: “Actually, I believe official efforts to force women to bear children against their will is “anti-woman.”

This is a strawman fallacy.

Remember this bill is not about banning abortion (why is that so hard to grasp). This is about two things.

1. Not forcing those who are against abortions from performing it.

2. Not forcing those who are against abortions to pay for it.

Why did you swing this to arguing about banning abortions. That’s a strawman. Perhaps it’s because I’m prolife that you think it’s OK to argue that. I’m happy to argue that if you want. But this bill is not about banning abortions. You may say it is in the long term, but that is also presumptuous.

Secondly if you were able to comprehend my point, the second part of the question was not whether she would be forced to bear children against her will. Technically (i.e. using DNA and logic) we can say that she is ALREADY bearing a human child (unless you can scientifically prove otherwise). The question at hand is if she can choose to force other people to kill that fetus for her and also pay for that killing.

jodi-jacobson

leave religion out.

Not when the US Council of Catholic Bishops lobbies for legislation that would let women die, and when the whole debate around women, sex and reproduction is set in one set of “morals” as dictated by one set of religious values not shared by everyone.

goatini

and before that, I was struggling with Sister telling us grade-school girls, in our weekly Released Time religious instruction classes, that (1) when we married and became pregnant, we should make sure we were taken to a Catholic hospital, so that if there should be any complications, the doctors would be sure to let us die so that we would go straight to Heaven for sacrificing our lives in childbirth in favor of the fetus, even if it too died regardless – instead of to a Protestant, Jewish or secular hospital where they might sacrifice the fetus and save the miserable lives of us girls, only to stain our souls with mortal sin; and (2) should both of us survive the complications, and should the newborn be severely physically and/or mentally compromised, this was a sign to us that God loved us even more than other women, and regarded us as especially special to be given the supreme gift of a broken child that he trusted us above anyone else to tend for Him.

I got the idea right then and there, that if I ever DID get pregnant, I’d make sure I WASN’T ever taken to a Catholic hospital, since I had no intentions of being left to die when even the less sophisticated medical science of the early 1960s could have easily prevented the woman’s death from many childbirth complications.

I took every measure I could to make sure I never got pregnant, either, over the ensuing 50 years, probably because Sister scared the living cr@p out of me that day.

Interestingly enough, the teachings of the Catholic Church were the single MOST effective behavioral reinforcement to never, EVER take any chances with unprotected sex!

rebellious-grrl

This bill sucks! It is a horribly written piece of crap.

“Forcible rape,” what qualifies as “force?” As if rape isn’t horrible enough. Will only certain women qualify for this? Who makes the decision as to the degree of “force” to qualify as rape? Is there a certain degree a woman is supposed to suffer? Like that’s not sexist.

I find this language strange, “pregnant female.” Do they mean “pregnant ‘human’ female?” Or “pregnant female” cat? “Pregnant female” cow? “Pregnant female” goat? Are women livestock? Why not say, “in the case where a woman suffers from……..” The emphasis is on pregnant. Like it’s determined she IS and WILL remain pregnant until she gives birth to a live baby.

ldan

Since Trolly McTrout said he (assumption, but boy does he read as male) was done after his last spiel, we can probably remain on topic. The rest of them shut up after about the fifth explaination of why their cut and paste skills were way more impressive than their reading comprehension skills.

[edit] spoke too soon

altrout

You said:

I am against war because it actually kills innocent human beings, so why should I be forced to support, through taxation, something I see as murder? Get how ridiculous your logic is, now?

I believe your argument is faulty (and your tone is cantankerous). If you are against war and do not wish to pay for it, feel free to offer up a bill to be voted upon that says that if you are against war you should not need to pay for it. If you can get more than Dennis Kucinich to vote for it, you are on your way.

Surely you are familiar with the Republican system of legislation we have in this country?

Note in fact we already have a law that says if you are against war, you don’t need to participate in it (conscientious objector). So your statement is immediately refuted. There is in fact great precedence to the participation part of this.

As to the paying part of this there is also much precedence there too. As a Buddhist I do not believe in paying taxes for churches or synagogues to be built. Fortunately we live in a country where I do not need to do so. Nor do I believe in paying for someone to have slaves. So similarly there is much precedence for someone to not want to pay for abortions.

So both parts have precedence and thus the example is robust. Perhaps you had not thought carefully about your statements before voicing them.

In Buddhism we have something called vaca which means speaking in a truthful and non-hurtful way. I suggest this for you.

arekushieru

This is a strawman fallacy.

Remember this bill is not about banning abortion (why is that so hard to grasp). This is about two things.

1. Not forcing those who are against abortions from performing it.

2. Not forcing those who are against abortions to pay for it

Um, which, essentially, prevents women from seeking abortions, no matter how much you would like to try to deny it (why is that so hard to grasp).

Why did you swing this to arguing about banning abortions. That’s a strawman. Perhaps it’s because I’m prolife that you think it’s OK to argue that. I’m happy to argue that if you want. But this bill is not about banning abortions. You may say it is in the long term, but that is also presumptuous.

Nope, it isn’t. When women don’t have access to more than one such health care provider in their area, when that physician refuses to provide that service, when the woman is poor and without a family to support her (the most likely person to access this care), when that woman must secure funds to travel long distances to actually find a provider willing to perform that service, when that just further delays the point in time in which the woman can actually access abortion care, making the service even more expensive, yes, women are being prevented from having abortions.

A fetus is NOT a child. One is not a child until one has, at the very least, been taken from the hospital.

The question at hand is if you can choose to force other people to kill war-time civilians for the government and also pay for that killing.

altrout

4. Taking all of those into consideration why aren’t they (and you) opposing ALL forms of taxation taken from them (and you) that lead to the exact same thing they (and you) consider murder in abortion?

This is yet a strawman and ad hominem fallacy. You have to focus on the argument, not on the assumed hypocrisies of the arguer. If a Nazi were to argue that 1+1 = 2, you may have good reason to not like him, but his argument would still be valid. Do not try to dilute the argument. Focus on why the argument currently at hand is valid. You know nothing about my other stances and for all you know I do exactly that. Attacking a presumed hypocrisy that has nothing to do with the matter at hand show the weakness of your position. I would urge you to consider the facts and argue rationally.’

In Buddhism we have something called: samadhi: correct meditation or concentration, I would suggest you concentrate on the actual argument and meditate on what it is that the argument consists of.

jodi-jacobson

I have just included quotes from an article by Talking Points Memo quoting Cong. Joe Pitts on the intent of the bill, which is exactly as I have described it.

Second, please note that your posts are now going to be flagged as trolling and you will be banned unless you stay on point and stop repeating the same unsupportable comments.

goatini

and just about left to die.

One evening I was having dinner at my place with some friends, when suddenly I started having abdominal pain, that became more and more severe over the next half-hour. My friends called an ambulance, and I was rushed to the nearest hospital – St. Vincent’s.

I was examined, poked, prodded, x-rayed, my blood was taken for testing, and ultimately I was left alone on a bed in the ER, in more pain than I had ever known in my life. I was told by the (male) doctor, and by the nurses, that they could find no cause for my pain, and until they could find a cause, they could not administer any drugs or treatment to at least alleviate the pain, if nothing else.

The pain was so very severe that the only coherent thought I could form was “I AM NOW DYING”.

Shift change occurred at midnight, and a new OB/GYN came on board. She was a small, dark foreign woman who, from her South Asian appearing countenance, didn’t look like Vatican Canon was part of her educational formation.

She approached my bed, and after reviewing my chart and x-rays, and performing some gentle poking and prodding, asked me straightaway, “Do you have an IUD?”

“YES”, I said. (a Copper 7, the latest and greatest model of the day)

She reached in, pulled the string, popped the IUD, and VOILA, NO MORE PAIN.

She said that the X-rays looked to her like there might be an IUD that had shifted out of position that was causing the pain, and that it might have perforated my uterus had it remained there and continued to shift position.

When I had come to my senses enough following the swift relief of the cause of my suffering, it occurred to me that an entire ER staff of health care professionals had surely seen the IUD on the X-ray, and the thread in their gyno exam.

And they had left me there to UNNECESSARILY writhe in senseless agony for hours, with nothing to relieve the pain.

And they had left me there to UNNECESSARILY possibly suffer a grievous internal injury, that would have destroyed my ability to bear children, should I have wanted to do so someday.

If ever I knew in my heart and soul that to the Catholic Church, I was completely without worth as a human being, solely because I was a female in a grave state of sinful disobedience to Humanae Vitae, at that moment it was burned in.

I AM more valuable than a fertilized egg. I was NOT put upon this earth for the sole purpose of being a breeding container with NO rights and NO voice. I should NOT be left to suffer and die for disobeying bodily laws imposed on me by celibate men in fine silk dresses. And there is NOTHING noble about dying for no other reason but superstitious ignorance and bigotry towards my gender.

arekushieru

You have to focus on the argument, not on the assumed hypocrisies of the arguer.

Um, no. If your argument is hypocritical, you HAVE no argument. Because that is not, truly, your belief.

If a Nazi were to argue that 1+1 = 2, you may have good reason to not like him, but his argument would still be valid. Do not try to dilute the argument. Focus on why the argument currently at hand is valid. You know nothing about my other stances and for all you know I do exactly that. Attacking a presumed hypocrisy that has nothing to do with the matter at hand show the weakness of your position. I would urge you to consider the facts and argue rationally.’

Maybe you do, but each of those arguments that was presented to you, you have failed to address, failed to note how they may reduce the validity of your claims if you do not back them up.

nonsense-nonsense

A couple of points:

1.) Being anti-war is fine, so long as everyone else is anti-war. Otherwise, you make for an easy target, and I’m sure no one here wants to lose their livelihood to a foreign power.

2.) That bill says nothing even close to what the author says it says. Nowhere does it say that hospitals can sit around and do nothing. That’s the most liberal misconstruction of a piece of legislation I’ve ever seen.

3.) I’d like to see the pro-choicers here go just one thread without the (laughable) histrionics. I’m sure I’m not the only one who gets tired of reading misogny this or anti-women that, since it somehow assumes that every women in the U.S. agrees with your position or didn’t vote for the Republican party.

nonsense-nonsense

This is yet a strawman…

You tend to run into a lot of those around here, unfortunately.

arekushieru

Yeah, you tend to make a lot of those, don’t you?

jodi-jacobson

That bill says nothing even close to what the author says it says. Nowhere does it say that hospitals can sit around and do nothing. That’s the most liberal misconstruction of a piece of legislation I’ve ever seen.

Lawyers examining the language of the amendment found precisely what we have reported, and Congressman Pitts has now confirmed the intent of the language of the amendment, as we have described it here.

rebellious-grrl

I’m blown away.

goatini, thank you for giving voice to what many, many women have endured.

I AM more valuable than a fertilized egg. I was NOT put upon this earth for the sole purpose of being a breeding container. I should NOT be left to suffer and die for disobeying bodily laws imposed on me by celibate men in fine silk dresses. And there is NOTHING noble about dying for no other reason but superstitious ignorance and bigotry towards my gender.

Beautifully stated.

arekushieru

1.) Being anti-abortion is fine, so long as everyone else is anti-abortion. Otherwise, you make for an easy target, and I’m sure no one here wants to lose their livelihood to a democratic, responsible government.

2.) Aforementioned strawman.

3.) See above. Misogyny, AS we have told you OVER and OVER, ISn’t determined by one’s gender. BUT the views they support. DUH.

rebellious-grrl

Not surprised Michele Bachmann is on the list.

arekushieru

I believe your argument is faulty (and your tone is cantankerous). If you are against war and do not wish to pay for it, feel free to offer up a bill to be voted upon that says that if you are against war you should not need topay for it. If you can get more than Dennis Kucinich to vote for it, you are on your way.

Surely you are familiar with the Republican system of legislation we have in this country?

Note in fact we already have a law that says if you are against war, you don’t need to participate in it (conscientious objector). So your statement is immediately refuted. There is in fact great precedence to the participation part of this.

As to the paying part of this there is also much precedence there too. As a Buddhist I do not believe in paying taxes for churches or synagogues to be built. Fortunately we live in a country where I do not need to do so. Nor do I believe in paying for someone to have slaves. So similarly there is much precedence for someone to not want to pay for abortions.

Wrong. 1. I am not the one who is making an argument promoting that someone not be forced to pay for something they consider murder. 2. Murder (or rather the taking of life) is the operative word, here. 3. Taxation is another operative word. 4. And, so are not performing it AS a requirement of your job. Many US military personnel defected to my country (which you will discover, below) on the grounds that they morally opposed the war that was currently taking place. They defected because they believed they would be would be court-martialled if they remained in the US. That is more relevant to the discussion, since they were ACTually objecting to the requirements of the perFORMance of their job. 5. I have NO problem allowing someone who has a conscientious objection to abortion not performing it, if there is someone else nearby who can provide the service in their stead – something that military personnel don’t have to be concerned about – (after all, that is something that occurs with ALL other professions, medical or otherwise, because if service providers can’t do their JOB they shouldn’t be working at that job in the first place. Plus, it is not OUR place to accommodate them, it is their place to accommodate us, especially when an objection to a certain part of health care arises because of one gender’s biological function) 6. Taking all of those into consideration why aren’t they (and you) opposing ALL forms of taxation taken from them (and you) that lead to the exact same thing they (and you) consider murder in abortion, esPECially as it comes under the perFORMance of their job? 7. You ARE paying for someone to have slaves, when you condone slave labour for women. 8. I am Canadian (which is also relevant to this discussion, because Canada is the only democratic country without a law placing time restrictions on abortion and, because, in the majority of provinces, including the one in which I live – the most conservative province IN Canada – there is public funding for abortion), not USian.

In Buddhism we have something called vaca which means speaking in a truthful and non-hurtful way. I suggest this for you.

Why don’t you try that first, then we can talk. Your obsessive need to enslave women to their uteruses and to fetuses and deny them the same rights that everyone else has, via the same talking points that every other ProLifer has used on here, is extremely untruthful and hurtful, after all.

colleen

The question at hand is if she can choose to force other people to kill that fetus for her and also pay for that killing.

No, the question at hand is whether it’s a valid hospital policy to allow pregnant women to die for no other reason than that their bodies cannot sustain a pregnancy and then require her family to pay the hospital bill for her murder.

A deathly ill woman is not in a position to “force” anyone to do ANYTHING. We are talking about hospital policy.

If the republican party Catholic church (and fake Buddhists) find saving the lives of women so offensive they clearly should not be in the business of providing medical care to women or, for that matter, writing laws they KNOW will have no other effect than increasing the maternal mortality rate.

rebellious-grrl

It’s clear you didn’t read the bill OR the article.

ldan

Agreed.

rebellious-grrl

It’s the Republican shame and blame game.

rebellious-grrl

Reading comprehension is *helpful.* You might want to try is sometime.

rebellious-grrl

You haven’t proved your reading comprehension. Just the opposite.

freetobe

We women are on to your Repuke party of puppets. At least I have been cannot speak for everyone. I know what they are up to. It has everything to do with religion and control and total takeover of the US Government which the Right is doing now.

When someone cries wolf so many times people stop listening and that is what the right has done. I am and many, many others are now convinced without a doubt that republicans are uneducated liars. They have proved it over and over. They SAY they are Christians HA prove it! I do not see it when I see them taking funding away from programs that help children and denying life saving organ transplants.

No the Repukes are playing God they think they are God it is their pathetic stupidity and jealousy of others who are just well plain smarter.

The party of repukes have lied and lied and lied and in our Bible it says Thou shalt not lie, it says women are to be treated as equals YES it is in the Bible.

The repukes know this but deny it to their own advantage.

It is also a well known fact that who yells the loudest about one subject is also guilty of that subject they are yelling about. I wonder how many of the Repukes wives and daughters have had abortions hmmmm???

Oh thats right they can afford them.

How dare that party of puppets allow people to die in the streets while they feed their big fat corporate buddies their souls!!

So you see just you saying the word Reoublican party makes me instantly know you are full of it! LIE , cheat and steal from the poor and give to the rich. they want all those poor babies being bor n to feed their glutony for war and conquering every country on the planet. the Poor babies will grow up and become soldiers to escape poverty. I know how it works!!!

You fool no one!!!

You forget you will be paying for them in welfare some day and you will yell about that just like spoiled brats who can’t have their way.

You destroy the planet feeding your big oil buddies and never stop to think that all those fetuses you want to save will be living in a hell hole whats left of the planet earth that is already on the destruction mode. Oh yes it is but you will deny that too to feed your lust for wealth and power.

Deny and lie what a way to go. karma is a bitch and I can’t wait for it to get all of you!!!!

rebellious-grrl

Do you think stories like goatini’s are “(laughable) histrionics?” Really? Because that’s reinforcing the misogynistic motives behind this bill.

ldan

1. O/T and not remotely close to the point. Point being that we all pay for things we’re not fond of because it’s part of the package of having a civil society. Most of us are willing to not nitpick every possible place our tax dollars go in order to avoid derailing the energy that our government should be putting to useful work. The right, on the other hand, is willing to use any issue they can to stir shit. They disagreed with the health care bill to begin with and tried to poison it with the Stupak amendment, knowing that the majority who wanted it would find that a tough pill to swallow. They know they can’t repeal it as it stands, so they’re trying it again. This is childish and unproductive bullshit that affects actual women’s lives (and, coincidentally, the lives of the men and children around them), from a group that supposedly campaigned on jobs and fiscal responsiblity.

2. See Jodi’s note below. The bill does precisely what she says. See the Talking Points Memo article for a more in-depth analysis.

3. Why is it hard to grasp that women can hold misogynist and anti-woman views and beliefs? Seriously, how can anyone see the crop of bills that have been brought forward at the federal and state level in just the past month as *urgent* and *emergency* legislation that all have in common the fact that they will affect women disproportionately and negatively, and think that there isn’t an anti-woman agenda going on? Note that these urgent bills are brought up before anything to do with the urgent business of dealing with fiscal crises in pretty much all cases. I guarantee you aren’t as tired of the accusations of misogyny as I am of living with it directed at me.

If it’s an injustice to intentionally kill innocent human beings, and abortion intentionally kills innocent human beings, then abortion is an injustice. The pro-choice argument that more women will die if abortion is made illegal is emotionally strong but intellectually hollow and deceiving.

Since when are we obligated to make injustices legal so that the person committing the injustice doesn’t suffer its natural consequences? Why it is a right for women to kill their children?!

I challenge anyone passionate about this to show me why women have the right to kill their children, or to show me evidence that the unborn are not human beings. Until then, I insist: abortion kills innocent persons. Killing innocent persons is wrong. Killing innocent persons in your own house by yourself or with a shady underground doctor is wrong and dangerous.

I don’t have the obligation nor feel in any way at all that I have to put aside my sense of justice so that you can kill your child more “safely.”

nonsense-nonsense

Yeah, you tend to make a lot of those, don’t you?

You make an infinite amount more of strawmen then I do, on account of me making zero and you making four or five a thread. And please tell me this isn’t true, as I know you want to.

ldan

Wow, for someone supposedly coming out against emotional but intellectually hollow arguments, you’re doing a good job of same.

You mix the words human being and person and child as if they all mean the same thing. They do not. It’s late and I have work to do before crashing, so I’m going with the short versions of arguments that can be drawn out with more nuance…but here’s the sound bites version.

Let’s start with the killing innocent human beings part first.

what does innocence have to do with it?

is removing life support killing? If no, then at least abortions up to viability aren’t actually killing.

Do I have the right to kill someone threatening my life and health? If so, abortions throughout pregnancy fall under this category…and killing a toddler does not.

Do I have a right to threaten someone else’s life or health? If not, why does a fetus have that right?

Now the human being-person-child part.

Human being does not equal person. If you believe a blastocyst is a person, you are in the minority. You are certainly out of the realms of legal personhood.

Actual, legal persons are not required to give of their body to sustain anyone else’s life. No forced blood or living organ donation, for example. Why are women (and only women) required to do so for your sense of justice?

How is a blastocyst different from any other stem cell? How is it ok to abort a parasitic twin, but not a regular old embyo? In other words, what is your definition of person that makes a zygote/embryo/fetus different from a number of other living things with human DNA that we have no problem medically removing?

Finally, on to the meat of this bill.

Does your sense of justice require that women who need life-saving abortions die (generally along with the fetus)?

Does your sense of justice believe that women need to prove they were subject to the right kind of rape in order to receive assistance in not carrying her rapist’s child and being traumatized over and over again?

Does your sense of justice allow that doctors and pharmacists can subject women presenting for treatment or prescriptions to their suspicions about why they may be there? Keep in mind that miscarriages look an awful lot like abortions.

prochoiceferret

If it’s an injustice to intentionally kill innocent human beings, and abortion intentionally kills innocent human beings, then abortion is an injustice.

Unlike forcing pregnant women to remain pregnant against their will, which is just peachy-keen!

Why it is a right for women to kill their children?!

Sorry, but this isn’t a pro-infanticide site. Were you looking for the Susan Smith Fan Club?

I challenge anyone passionate about this to show me why women have the right to kill their children, or to show me evidence that the unborn are not human beings.

Good luck with that. Perhaps you can show us why fetuses somehow have this amazing right to obtain biological life support from a woman who does not consent to providing it. Who else do you suppose gets this right to use womens’ bodies without their consent?

I don’t have the obligation nor feel in any way at all that I have to put aside my sense of justice so that you can kill your child more “safely.”

Well, you wouldn’t be the first person to think that violating the human rights of pregnant women is “justice.”

lemland

Granted, trying to be a bright side person, I’m glad that it says “allowing” hospitals that receive federal funds but are opposed to abortions to turn away women in need of emergency pregnancy termination to save their lives, and not “obligating” hospitals that receive federal funds but are opposed to abortions to turn away women in need of emergency pregnancy termination to save their lives.

Be that as it may, can I say to the government or whomever approved of this bill: “You are dumb, you are so dumb, you are really dumb, for real.” That’s seriously awesome, America, let the mother AND child die instead of just the child! YEAH LET’S KILL TWO PEOPLE FOR THE PRICE OF ONE, ALRIGHT!!!

See, things like this, this right here, make me not want to have children. You know that old saying, “All of the wrong people are having children, and all of the right people aren’t because they don’t want to bring a child into a world inhabited by people like that”? Yeah, that’s how I feel. I’m just going to get my uterus and ovaries removed entirely. Pretty soon, they’re going to be moving for a bill that makes masturbation illegal and requires every single egg and sperm to be made into children, because eggs and sperm are “half a person”! No girl will be allowed to have a period, because that bloody tampon had the POTENTIAL to become a CHILD!

I am so effing sick of the world… I’m going to move to Canada… or maybe Mars.

arekushieru

Well, I know you’re counting must be off, because you can’t provide ANY evidence of where I’ve made strawman claims AND because I’ve pointed out two instances where you’ve done so. Good job! /snerk

nonsense-nonsense

1.) The issue isn’t picking and choosing what you pay for; it’s not having to pay for something you don’t. This is where the whole pick and choose straw man that the left throws out falls apart. It doesn’t matter one lick if you’re anti-war. You have a vested interest in the government maintaining the safety of the populace, as that entails you being safe. If the government wages war to make sure that, say, no terrorist organization kills your friends and family, that is of direct benefit to you. The same goes for public works and the like. Now contrast that to paying for other people’s abortion, which has no benefit for anyone else other than the person obtaining an abortion, and you can see where the two analogies fall apart.

(And I wasn’t off-topic. Notice the people talking about not wanting to pay to go to war.)

-Most people actually agreed with the Stupak Amendment. Apparently, the majority who wanted to pass the bill, which the majority of Americans opposed, only care about their personal ideology. Go figure.

-Maybe where you live politicians are only capable of doing one thing at once (they’re not), but here in real life, politicians actually vote on multiple pieces of legislation at once.

-And let’s be real. 90% of the people complaining about the Republicans not living up to their promise (It’s been a grand total of three/four weeks), didn’t vote for them anyway.

2.) No, it doesn’t. Yet again I point out that nowhere in the bill does it say a hospital can sit around and do nothing. Hospitals have been allowed to refuse to perform an aborion if they transport the woman to another hospital for the past 40’ish years. In fact, I remember reading something, on this very site no less, which complained about the practice of some, usually Catholic, hospitals to transport women elsewhere to have an abortion they were unwilling to perform onsite. Anyway, how about YOU show the line of the bill where it says that a hospital will be able to sit around and do nothing, effectively watching a woman die since you think it exists?

“Since the 1970s, existing law affirmed the right to refuse involvement in abortion in all circumstances,” a spokesperson for Pitts told TPM.

That is absolutely correct and the bill does nothing to override EMTALA. Hospitals already can, and do, refuse to perform abortions as long as they transport the women to a facility which will perform an abortion. The bill changes NOTHING.

3.) Calling something misogynist and anti-women doesn’t make it so. The problem is that your perception of the abortion debate is archaic and outdated, even among women. It has nothing to do with the oppression of women or whatever, but rather protecting the unborn. It’s that simple, and you choosing to believe the recent string of anti-abortion bills to be an “attack” on women won’t change this fact.

Oh, and fwiw, if I wanted, I could go through life thinking the White man is out to get me. That wouldn’t make it true, though.

arekushieru

1.) The issue isn’t picking and choosing what you pay for; it’s not having to pay for something you don’t. This is where the whole pick and choose straw man that the left throws out falls apart. It doesn’t matter one lick if you’re anti-war. You have a vested interest in the government maintaining the safety of the populace, as that entails you being safe. If the government wages war to make sure that, say, no terrorist organization kills your friends and family, that is of direct benefit to you. The same goes for public works and the like. Now contrast that to paying for other people’s abortion, which has no benefit for anyone else other than the person obtaining an abortion, and you can see where the two analogies fall apart.

It’s amusing that you don’t realize what a strawman you’ve created and how completely you missed the point, thus, causing your argument to ‘fall apart’. You can’t say that someone should not be forced to pay for abortion funding if they are simply morally opposed to it, then deny the same recourse for those opposed to war. Derrrr….

In general, the government doesn’t maintain the safety of the populace by waging war. (Hello? Afghanistan, anyone? A suPREMEly unstable Afghanistan?) In general, more non-combatants than combatants are killed when the government DOES wage war.

Abortion has benefits for no-one besides the woman… only if you believe pregnancy is not a high risk medical condition (but, then, I would have to ask you what kool-aid you’ve been drinking). Abortion has benefits for no-one besides the woman… only if you believe that healthy women are not good for society. Abortion has benefits for no-one besides the woman… only if you believe pregnant women are completely isolated from society (which is blatantly untrue, since most women who have abortions had children and/or were married already).

(Yes, you were. Because these are responses to an off-topic post. At least we can admit that, I guess…?)

Yes, I CAN actually figure that the majority of the populace would be concerned with their own personal ideologies. How naive do you have to be to ‘figure’ otherwise?

Proof, please.

And that is not the argument. The argument is that the ones who proposed the bill left the language open to be interpreted as denying a woman care even in the event that it would save her life. Besides, nowhere does it say that the hospital CAN’T be allowed to sit around and do nothing. Again, missing the point. Or, did you miss the part where it said they could not be forced to refer their patients (women) to somewhere else? Because, we didn’t have any issues with the laws that were in place, PREViously. Something we HAVE said many times, before. Hmm, but I do love the way you just proved our point. I quote, “Even if the woman is hemorrhaging”. Because it refers to some other things we mentioned on this site, specifically, that life and rape exceptions are rare, even in the case that the ‘professional’ merely *suspects* that the treatment may be used for an abortion. So, what makes you think our interpretation ISn’t the more likely?

Factless and baseless fearmongering? Not if you take the time to actually read what I said, above. And, not if you question why they made any changes to the bill, if it doesn’t actually do anything? Hmmm…? Oh, that’s right, you only like to use that question when it pertains to something ProCHOICers say.

You are NOT protecting the unborn. You are granting them MORE rights than anyone born has, which means, essentially, MORE protections than anyone born has. Which, in turn, means that you reSTRICT the protections of women more than anyone else.

That ISn’t what oppression, misogyny and racism are about, AS we have said. They are about forms of privilege being built INto the structures of contemporary culture and society. Thanks.

arekushieru

High five right back atcha! Btw, I noticed in your comment about giving kudos to everyone, that ahunt was mentioned twice. Was that unintentional or intentional? Either way, you must really like her, eh? ;)

littledinobug

I really think that when Dr’s take the Hippocratic Oath, they should agree to leave their religion and personal beliefs at the office door in the morning and pick them up again at the end of the day.

When YOUR Personal convictions get in the way of YOUR job and MY Life, It’s a problem. When YOUR job is to SAVE MY LIFE and YOUR religion/philosophies comes between that, then guess what, that’s a problem.

When something in YOUR personal life prevents you from doing YOUR job to the fullest of your capacity, then you need to re-evaluate if that career is right for you.

littledinobug

Dr’s are supposed to leave their personal philosophies at the door up here. If they don’t they answer to the licensing board and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of their province for refusing care.

They can say “I don’t recommend this procedure because:” and allow you to make your informed decision but they cannot deny you care.

Starts singing

Every sperm is sacred

Every sperm is good

Every sperm is needed

In your neighborhood!

littledinobug

GAH Multipost! sorry!

Every sperm is sacred

Every sperm is good

Every sperm is needed

In your neighborhood!

littledinobug

FUUUUUUU

littledinobug

gonna leave this because it’s funny…

Every sperm is sacred

Every sperm is good

Every sperm is needed

In your neighborhood!

equalist

The difference between a fetus and a 1 day old baby is that while the baby can be handed to someone else to care for (as adoption, or even just a nurse or other caregiver taking the baby out of the room to care for it for the mother to get some rest) the fetus cannot be given to another person. When medical science finds a way to successfully transfer the placenta and fetus carried by a pregnant woman into the body of another to continue the pregnancy, then your argument will have validity. Until then, there is no comparison of a fetus to a newborn.

In addition, caring for a 1 day old newborn does not cause massive organ failure as pregnancy gone wrong can do, thus making the life of the mother part of the argument in this case invalid as well.

equalist

Wow, you can’t even get issues NOT dealing with abortion correct. A conscientious objector who is actively in the military doesn’t have the option of not participating in war, they just have the option of not actually being required to kill or carry a weapon as part of their duties (fiance was in the military, from a military family and we’ve had conversations regarding ACTUAL conscientious objectors he and those in his family have known personally). A conscientious objector who is trained as a medic does NOT have the option of not being shipped out on the battlefield to provide medical care to wounded soldiers. A conscientious objector trained as a communications expert does NOT have the option of ignoring transmissions that are involved in or could lead to war. Just more proof that you don’t know anything about what you’re blathering on about, no matter what the topic.

ldan

With further explaination, I’ll grant it wasn’t off topic. That’s all I’ll grant here though.

The issue isn’t picking and choosing what you pay for; it’s not having to pay for something you don’t. This is where the whole pick and choose straw man that the left throws out falls apart.

Fine, my use of a standard phrase was less than precise. However, the analogy still stands that objecting to paying for war is the same as objecting to paying for abortion. This is different from paying for a military to exist, they ask for extra money for the wars we’re currently in. I’m really not sure how I benefit from the war in Iraq in your argument here.

However, I can object to paying for something that I directly or indirectly benefit from. I object to the way we’ve subsidized corn for decades, despite the lower food costs, because those lower costs come with a bevy of problems that outweigh them. Also, it’s pretty ridiculous to think that you can be certain that all of the government spending I object to actually benefits me in some way.

Second, even if I ceded the right to object to spending that somehow benefited me (directly or indirectly), then most of the anti-choice crowd is out of order as well. Anti-choice women and their daughters get abortions. Anti-choice men have wives, sisters, and daughters that get abortions–both necessary and elective. Everyone benefits indirectly from the absence of millions of unwanted children that would otherwise exist simply in terms of the resources those children would need.

But wait, I can hear the argument now, “they don’t take goverment money for those abortions.” And while this ignores the indirect benefit of not having millions of unwanted children to deal with, previously, you would mostly be correct (I find it hard to believe that there have never been abortions for anti-choicers that were assisted with Medicare or other modes of government funding..thus mostly correct). These bills go way beyond those dollars directly funding abortion. Most companies offering employee health care get a tax break for doing so. Under this bill, they won’t get that break if they use plans that cover insurance…that’s a huge number of women affected right there, plenty of them anti-choice women who have benefitted from having that insurance for their abortions, but now want to deny it to everyone else. Tax-advantaged health savings plans suddenly become ‘federal funds’. So after setting aside money for medical costs, women are supposed to be the one group who can’t use this money (their own money) for such costs? So basically, up until now, anti-choicers have, in fact, benefited from federal money paying for abortions if you go by these new definitions of ‘federal money paying for abortions.’ So hey, they don’t have a right to protest.

Given that this bill, and the Stupak amendment, go well beyond what is generally understood as ‘federal money paying for abortion,’ to mostly prevent women and employers from acquiring insurance that covers abortion using their own money, the majority of voters actually oppose that idea. Polls have shown majority support for being able to buy government insurance that allows for coverage of abortion with segregated funds. These go well beyond that.

I’m well aware that politicians can work on many things at once. But are they holding press confrences and talking loudly about what a priority those other things are? You’re trying to tell me that I shouldn’t take away the message that these legislators think it’s more important to quickly push their anti-choice ideology than to push other useful legislation, when that is what they, themselves, are telling me.

2. I’ve already quoted the lines of the amendment that strengthen the conscience clauses that are already allowing doctors and hospitals to feel they have the right to endanger women’s lives despite the laws already saying that they aren’t allowed to do so. Basically, the very explicit exceptions allowed for funding, are not spelled out with regards to the conscience clauses, not least because that’s precisely how the authors of the amendmnt want it…have you not been paying attention to the history of Hyde (hint, it required a tooth and nail fight just to get those few exceptions) and the words of this amendment’s authors (linked to elsewhere)?

3. If the abortion debate from your side of the fence is solely about protecting the unborn, at the expense of the women who carry them, then yes, it is anti-woman. How is that an archaic view, rather than a stark statement of reality?

If the abortion debate is about protecting the unborn all the way back to conception, then it’s hypocritical at its core, because almost nobody is actually acting as if they believe blastocysts are people.

If the abortion debate is about women bearing the ‘responsibility’ for having sex, then it is misogynist (women get all the burden of adjusting behavior for this responsibility while most men get none), anti-woman (since very few men will have to deal with said burden), and construing responsibility to mean ‘must allow another human to use her body against her will,’ which is just plain creepy on several levels and not what the word actually means. Nobody has yet managed to tell me how having an abortion = not taking responsibility. Nobody has yet managed to tell me how they think viewing children as a burden women are required to accept is healthy for women, children, or society.

anthonyjk

…because I feel that the issue of allowing women the right and resources to control their own bodies and prevent unwanted and forced pregnancy simply is beyond debate. But, this recent trolling by “pro-lifers” pretending to be moderates and attempting to hijack and distort sites like this is simply too much for me, a pro-choice progressive Black male, to ignore.

I’m sure that Al Trout and the rest of the trolls are duly paid well by their missionaries for coming here with their distortions and lies. That doesn’t make their points any less lies, thogh.

You can cut-and-paste the same section of the proposed bill a million times, and it still won’t matter as much as the intent of those sponsoring it, which has been made explicit from Day One: to deny women any access to abortion and reproductive servies under ANY and ALL circumstances. These are the same legislators who openly sponsor a global Human Life Amendment; who cheer on antiabortton harrassment groups like Operation Rescue and Rescue America, and who are openly silent about the direct targeting of abortion providers for murder. Yet, we should trust them to moderate their intent in the event that a woman has to terminate a pregnancy to save her life, or a woman who is forced to bear a pregnancy induced by rape (and yes, that includes “date rape”, statutory rape, and other means of deception to get a woman pregnant against her stated will) or incest?? Really?? Do you take us for idiots, Trout??

Also…the “we’re simply allowing health care professionals who are ‘pro-life’ the option not to be discriminated by forcing them to perform abortions” meme simply doesn’t wash. Considering the larger oath to protect the life of actual living human beings, and the fact that no other group has ever asked for such an exception (imagine a hospital refusing to offer aid to a wealthy person who can afford it merely because of prejudice about his looks or his race), I fail to see why “pro-lifers” should get special relief from antidiscrimination laws…especially when the same people will never grant the same level of equality to those GLBT folk who simply want the same rights and privileges that straight married folk take for granted. Unless, of course, the goal is to simply privatize all public hospitals and make it so that the only HC professionals available happen to be “pro-life” and willing to impose their moral beliefs on the general public. Sorry, Trout, but we’ve been there and done that, and we just won’t be going there again.

I respect the fact that people are entitled to their own biases and opinions…but hospitals and health care professionals are led by a higher oath to serve the public…and to deliberately deny people essential public services under the cover of personal morality is not only oppressive, but highly discriminatory.

Oh..and Trout?? Quoting “pro-life” atheists, Buddists, Wiccans, whatever to prove that your position is “moderate” simply doesn’t fly here. Your opinions speak more for you than anything else. And, not even Christopher Hitchens will make your case any more sound; considering that he remains as pro-war as ever. (Ever read him during the Gulf War??)

I’ll just make my point clear and explicit: HR3, even with the infamous “provable rape” rider removed or revised, is still a grave threat to women’s reproductive freedom and thusly to women’s autonomy. It should be opposed for the same reason those truely “pro-life” and “antiwar” should oppose war funding: because it is anti-human.

A woman is far more than just a sperm deposit or a baby factory.

These are my views, and mine alone.

Anthony Kennerson

Lafayette, Louisiana

joeman

“Pretty soon, they’re going to be moving for a bill that makes masturbation illegal and requires every single egg and sperm to be made into children, because eggs and sperm are “half a person”! No girl will be allowed to have a period, because that bloody tampon had the POTENTIAL to become a CHILD!“

You are right, I’ve heard republicans say that the next bill they sponsor will do exactly this. Legislate that tampons are human beings. Those right wing nazis want to control all of us. In fact most xians also want to do this. Those monomaniacal fascists. First they want us to stop killing what they call babies. We have to stop them now! What are you going to do about it?

ahunt

Trout…two things: A) not only did I read the bill, I went looking for further information that would either corroborate or contradict the claims posted here.

B) Spare me the disingenuous “logicspeak” nitpicking. The purpose of this legislation is to prevent women from obtaining abortion, and you know it.

joeman

Arekundieru: A fetus is NOT a child. One is not a child until one has, at the very least, been taken from the hospital.

You are brilliant Arekundiersu, those things are not to be considered babies till we say they are! I say we should be able to kill things (whatever you call them) till the last day we leave the hospital as you said. Mothers should be able to decide if they really want the baby, if it’s cute enough, if it’s healthy enough. If not then they can kill it right there. Finally a website with people who have my own beliefs. How wonderful.

dwightk

thanks for identifying Keenan. It was a little confusing for me in the first draft. I’ll be interested to see the language from the amendment when that’s available.

goatini

particularly the support from a Testostero-American. :-)

And much appreciate your eyes-wide-open thoughts on the Hitch. Before September 11, 2001, I was pretty much an unreserved fan of his gimlet-eyed (figuratively and literally) worldview, but the troubling jingoistic PR fervor that temporarily infected the Vanity Fair editorial staff at that time remains with him still.

Yet, he’s one of the few latter-day opiners with whom I can agree to disagree with on some topics, and still have an overall respect for, which is a tribute to his prodigious intellect. His work on poverty pimp Bojaxhiu redeems him, at least in my eyes, from his sabre-rattling on the illegal ME wars of empire:

Um, no, they are not to be considered babies until they ARE. I would suggest looking up definitions before replying, next time, because you would, then, see that I am correct and avoid making yourself look like an idiot. Baby is a SLANG term for a development stage outSIDE of the uterus. And a child IS a stage defined the way I SAID it was.

Amusing to note that you avoided the rest of my argument just so you could promote the same talking points that have been refuted over and over, already. Did you think I wouldn’t notice? ProChoicers aren’t the ones who are as ignorant as the Anti-Choicers (a term which includes ProLifers and ProAbortionists. Just to make a pre-emptive strike so you can’t claim you aren’t anti-choice because your surface comments imply you are ProAbortion)believe they are. Something for you to remember next time, I guess….

Because, abortion doesn’t involve babies OR killing. And abortion is an option so that women can have the same rights as everyone else. The right to determine WHO uses their body and when and HOW it is used, meaning EVERY part of their body, not every part of their body, exCLUding the uterus. Something anti-choicers would like to ignorantly and falsely claim is not sexist.

FINALLY. Someone admits that using the slang term ‘baby’ really IS just an emotional appeal, NOT the truth. (After all, you equated it with being cute and healthy.) Although, one has to wonder, why you would imply that ProChoicers are the ones making up definitions, if that is the case. More disingenuousness?

And, if you are dyslexic (and not merely *attempting* to be cute), please avoid using my name or copy and paste it. Even if it is the former, I *swear* I will know who you are replying to. I have been able to distinguish between indirect replies to me and others, as you will see, without my name, before, on this thread, if you actually take the time to read replies, now. And I realized who you were responding to *just* from reading the subject line. Kthxbai.

renesis

I appreciate the effort to post the modified text and the expanded article, however you still have not even paraphrased how this bill actually accomplishes what it is accused of doing. Pasting in unreadable text (an amendment with no context, no less) with no shortage of conclusions does not constitute responsible reporting.

It does seem like there’s been a bit of back and forth with Pitts and his office, but none of it even addresses how or even whether the bill does what TPM and the others have claimed it is. How do you expect anyone to contact their representative with this non-information?

arekushieru

You haven’t been reading very carefully, have you? Jodi added that text when it was in its initial stages and there WAS nothing to find on the shared internet. Now, there is. Simple as that. Pitts, himself, admitted that it does exactly what it implies it does. And, L-dan adressed this very issue above. Y’know, when she referred to how much of a fight it was to put those exceptions into the Hyde Amendment, even…? Also, when others reported on circumstances that were happening even NOW, that supPORted our theory?

ahunt

Not to worry, Renesis.

Some of us are confident enough with the information we have. By all means, wait until you are comfortable.

ahunt

goatini…I struggle to get past the rage and snark…to respond reasonably to the unreasonable.

Epic fail.

datasnake

As a man and a Christian I have to say, please don’t judge all of us by those assholes. The way you were treated was abhorrent. Anyone who would refuse to help those in need because they didn’t “deserve” help is DEFINITELY not a follower of Christ, and as far as I’m concerned, not worthy of being called a man either! And that goes double for anyone even considering voting for this asinine bill.

joeman

Hey man I’m on your side. I agree with you 100%. Those anti-choicers only want to oppress women. We agree, it ain’t a baby till it leaves the hospital. Don’t you agree with me?

arekushieru

No, we don’t. Like I said, it’s not a CHILD until it leaves the hospital. Child does NOT = baby. Nice try. /snerk You’re trying to play it cute but it just keeps getting more and more pathetic, since you aren’t hiding your bias, at ALL AND since you avoid even attempting to be courteous.

arekushieru

I thought I was home free, but then I saw Wisconsin in there, twice.

ldan

I wanted to add my thanks for the support as well. Extra voices are very welcome.

ldan

Wait…wait. So you’re trying to oh so subtly bring in some kind of argument about us changing our definitions based on the location of the <insert human development stage here>! Right! Am I right! Because that just got me a BINGO on my crummy anti-choice arguments bingo card!

I mean wow, that’s so profound. Moving an infant in and out of a hospital, or a car, or a house, is exactly like moving it in and out of a living woman’s body.

..except it’s not.

squirrely-girl

Oh, and fwiw, if I wanted, I could go through life thinking the White man is out to get me. That wouldn’t make it true, though.

… because otherwise we can read them oh too well ;)

Seriously, do you just have nothing better to do than troll a women’s repro-health site to argue with teh womenz?

prochoicekatie

Are commenters here actually so incompetent that they don’t understand the clause that the article discusses???

Shall we sum it up for them?

So, the government, under very limited circumstances, will cover the cost of an abortion. (Their point)

A hospital may let a woman who NEEDS an abortion to save her life DIE, without care, without a transfer to a treating hospital. And the government can’t reimburse (even within their microscopic exceptions) for services that weren’t provided in the first place. (Our point, highlighting the irrelevancy of their point)

catseye71352

WHERE ARE THE JOBS ???

skiatnes

Oh, you poor unfortunate soul, I’m afraid your math is not remotely logically sound. Since you used the phrase “an infinite amount more of,” you implied that there was a difference between the two amounts of a particular number, which means you are talking about adding! That statement would look like this:

X = number of strawmen made by you

Y = number of strawmen made by your opponent

Y = X + infinity

Since you stipulated for us that X = 0, logically, this means that

Y = 0 + infinity

Or simply, Y = infinity.

Your opponent would have to have literally created an infinite amount of strawmen. If your opponent made one strawman per thread, this would require your opponent to have posted on an infinite number of threads, which is an impressive undertaking, and I’m skeptical that this website’s bandwidth usage would support your claim. :> However, since you helpfully also stipulated that your opponent makes 4 to 5 strawmen per thread, then — being mathematically conservative, your opponent would only need to post in infinity/4 threads (or, at the mathematically generous end of the spectrum, perhaps as small as infinity over five!), which is a somewhat smaller infinity (as it is indeed mathematically possible for one infinity to be ‘larger’ than another, but that’s a Calculus II or later concept) — but which would still require your opponent to post on an infinite number of threads.

Had you, however, asserted that your opponent makes “infinitely more strawmen” than you do, THEN you might have been implying multiplication (as with “doubly more” or “triply more). In that case, your assertion might actually have some mathematical merit, given — using the same variables above, we have:

Let Z = the number of times more that one’s opponent creates strawmen than that oneself does.

Then,

Y = Z * X

Therefore, Y/X = Z

Since Y = 4 or 5 (assume 4 in this case), and X = 0, then

4/0 = Z.

Since any number divided by zero equals infinity, then Z would in fact, as you would have asserted, equal infinity.

But that wasn’t what you asserted. What you asserted was unintelligent, incorrect, and logistically impossible!

I hope this has taught you a valuable lesson about math, and an even more valuable lesson about confidently asserting an ignorant and inaccurate viewpoint.

I too know more than a little bit about formal and informal fallacies. If you want to play that game, then by all means, let’s tango.

thejjmoody

You seem to be missing a really big point here so let me cut and paste it for you…

(g) Nondiscrimination on Abortion-

`(1) NONDISCRIMINATION- A Federal agency or program, and any State or local government that receives Federal financial assistance under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act), may not subject any institutional or individual health care entity to discrimination, or require any health plan created or regulated under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) to subject any institutional or individual health care entity to discrimination, on the basis that the health care entity refuses to–

`(2) DEFINITION- In this subsection, the term `health care entity’ includes an individual physician or other health care professional, a hospital, a provider-sponsored organization, a health maintenance organization, a health insurance plan, or any other kind of health care facility, organization, or plan.

The problem people here are talking about does not exist in your oft quoted text it is actually in this part, specifically in parts C, D and the definitation as put in section 2.

These sections in effect strip all health care providers of the need to even perform an abortion under any circumstances. By not requiring training in the procedure for an emergency abortion a hospital can claim they are not able to provide a service their staff has not received training in, further by providing the ablility to tell a woman seeking the service they aren’t required to provide a referal to another provider that does provide that service they are seeking to limit the ablility of a woman to seek the procedure at another provider.

Additionally, I noticed that in all your cutting and pasting you actually omitted another section of the bill that is also a potental source of problems. Specifically Section 1, sub section A, the one that allows for abortions in cases of forceable rape and in cases of a minor an act incest.

The problem with this is that forceable rape is not defined, neither is incest. There are also no detailed requirements as to what must be provided to prove the woman or child has been a victim of one of these crimes. Is a report enough, must there be a rape kit performed, what timeframe does a woman have to prove she is a victim, must the perp actually be convicted of the crime, or must charges actually be pending to establish evidence of these crimes? Plus across all the juristictions in the US there is no one accepted legal standard for forceable rape. Does this include date rape, spousal rape, aquantiance rape, or in addition to the rape do there have to be signs of overt violence?

Even your favorite quoted subsection B doesn’t actually provide protections for women in those cases either, because of the part of the bill I quoted earlier in this post.

This bill is nothing more than an attempt to restrict access to abortion because Roe v. Wade is proving too difficult to challenge in court.

If this bill passes I will hope that none of the sponsors, co-sponsors, or members of their families are ever caught getting an abortion or even rumored to have gotten one.

julie-watkins

This angers me

By not requiring training in the procedure for an emergency abortion a hospital can claim they are not able to provide a service their staff has not received training in.

The skill set needed to treat a miscarriage, where surgery is needed to stop the bleeding & clean out & prevent infection is the same skill set as for abortion. So in order to not do abortions, the want legal right to ignore training for certain emergency situations. I guess women who can’t bring a pregnancy to term aren’t worth saving. Yet these hospitals want accredidation, permission from the state to do business, want to collect government funds. Wrong.

No. Medical policies and procedures based on ideology are not the equal of medical best practices determined by clinical study, and the Bishops shouldn’t pressure the legislators to pretend they are equally valid. Grump.